ML051030058

License Amendment Request to Use Yield Strength Determined from Measured Material Properties for Reinforcing Bar in Structural Calculations for Control Rod Drive Missile Shields

ML051030058
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	04/13/2004
From:	Nazar M Indiana Michigan Power Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
AEP:NRC:4520-01, FOIA/PA-2005-0075
Download: ML051030058 (145)

Text

Indiana Michigan Power Company 500 Circle Drive Buchanan, Ml 49107 1373 INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER April 13, 2004 AEP:NRC:4520-01 10 CFR 50.90 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Stop O-P 1-17 Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units I and 2 Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316 License Amendment Request to Use Yield Strength Determined From Measured Material Properties for Reinforcing Bar in Structural Calculations for Control Rod Drive Missile Shields

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M), the licensee for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP) Units 1 and 2, proposes to amend Facility Operating Licenses DPR-58 and DPR-74. I&M requests review and approval, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(viii), of a change to the CNP licensing basis as described in the CNP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The change allows the use of a reinforcing bar (rebar) yield strength value based on measured material properties, as documented in I&M rebar acceptance tests, in control rod drive missile shield. (missile shield) structural calculations.

During the period between September 1997 and December 2000, I&M performed a reanalysis of the CNP containment structures.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) subsequently reviewed the reanalysis and concluded that, with the exception of the missile shields, I&M used acceptable methods and appropriate assumptions and design parameters. In Reference 1, I&M informed the NRC that structural calculations for the missile shields used conservative yield strength values based on measured material properties as documented in certified mill test reports (CMTRs). The safety factors used in the structural calculations were consistent with the CNP licensing basis.

Therefore, the safety margins in the missile shield design were unaffected. This methodology was incorporated into the CNP UFSAR under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 for use on a case by case basis.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatoiy Commission AEP:NRC:4520-01 Page 2 In Reference 2, the NRC staff stated that they had reasonable assurance that the missile shields will perform their intended function. However, the NRC staff concluded that the use of the CMTR rebar yield strength, in lieu of code specified material properties, in the structural calculations for the missile shields was not an acceptable method to restore the original design and licensing basis requirements and margins. In Reference 3, I&M informed the NRC it would submit a license amendment requesting NRC approval to allow the use of missile shield rebar strength based on material test data.

By letter dated November 12, 2003, I&M submitted a license amendment request (Reference 4) to allow the use of CMTR data for the missile shield structural calculation. Subsequently, in late February, 2004, I&M identified an NRC memorandum that provided additional information about the NRC's concern with the use of CMTR data (Reference 5). I&M withdrew that license amendment request (Reference 6) and committed to submit another license amendment request that includes data from acceptance tests performed when rebar was delivered to the site during original plant construction. This request for license amendment satisfies that commitment.

Enclosure 1 provides an affirmation statement pertaining to this letter. provides I&M's evaluation of the submitted change. Attachment I to this letter provides the rebar procurement specification. to this letter provides the rebar strength calculation.

The calculation contains a chronology of the missile shield construction, drawings showving the location of the rebar, the CMTR data and the I&M acceptance test data, and a statistical evaluation of the data to determine an appropriate yield strength of the rebar that was used in the missile shields. Attachment 4 of this calculation is a copyrighted article, and a non-copyrighted abstract of the article has been substituted.

Copies of this letter and its attachments are being transmitted to the Michigan Public Service Commission and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission AEP:NRC:4520-01 Page 3 This letter contains no new commitments.

Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. John A. Zwolinski, Director of Design Engineering and Regulatory Affairs, at (269) 697-5007.

Sincerely, M. K. Nazar Senior Vice Presi nt and Chief Nuclear Officer RV/rdw

References:

1. Letter from Scot A. Greenlee, I&M, to NRC Document Control Desk, "Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units I and 2, Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request for Additional Information Regarding Containment Structure Conformance to Design Basis Requirements (TAC Nos.

MB3603 and MB3604)," AEP:NRC:2520, dated July 16, 2002.

2. Letter from John F. Stang, NRC, to A. Christopher Bakken, III, I&M, "Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2 -

Regarding Containment Structure Conformance to Design and Licensing Basis Requirements," dated March 21, 2003.

3. Letter from J. B. Giessner, I&M, to NRC Document Control Desk, "Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units I and 2, Containment Structure Conformance to Design and Licensing Basis Requirements," AEP:NRC:3 520, dated April 24, 2003.

4. Letter from M. K. Nazar, I&M, to NRC Document Control Desk "Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units I and 2, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, License Amendment Request to Use Yield Strength Determined From Measured Material Properties for Reinforcing Bar in Structural Calculations for Control Rod Drive Missile Shield,"

AEP:NRC:3520-01, dated November 12, 2003.

5. Memorandum from L. B. Marsh, NRC, to G. E. Grant, NRC, "Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2 - Response to Task Interfaces Agreement (TIA 2001-15)

Regarding Evaluation of Containment Structure Conformance to Design-

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission AEP:NRC:4520-01 Page 4.

Basis Requirements (TAC NOS. MB3603 and MB3604),"

dated January 13, 2003.

6. Letter from J. A. Zwolinski, I&M, to NRC Document Control Desk, "Donald C. Cook Nuclear' Plant Units I and 2, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Withdrawal of License Amendment Request to Use Yield Strength Determined From Measured Material Properties for Reinforcing' Bar in Structural Calculations for Control Rod Drive Missile Shield,"

AEP:NRC:4520, dated March 2, 2004.

Enclosures:

1. Affirmation

2. Evaluation of the Proposed Change Attachments:

1. Specification DCC CE 107 QCS, Revision 3, Reinforcing Steel Specifications

2. Calculation SD-040303-001, Revision 0, Unit I & 2 Control Rod Drive Missile Shield Reinforcing Steel Yield Strength c:

J. L. Caldwell, NRC Region III K. D. Curry, Ft. Wayne AEP, w/o enclosures/attachments J. T. King, MPSC, w/o enclosures/attachments MDEQ - WHMD/HWRPS, w/o enclosures/attachments NRC Resident Inspector J. F. Stang, Jr., NRC Washington, DC to AEP:NRC:4520-01 AFFIRMATION I, Mano K. Nazar, being duly sworn, state that I am Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer of American Electric Power Service Corporation and Vice President of Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M), that I am authorized to sign and file this request with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on behalf of I&M, and that the statements made and the matters set forth herein pertaining to I&M are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

American Electric Power Service Corporation M. K. Nazar Senior Vice Presi nt and Chief Nuclear Officer SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS 1;3 DAY OF _

1 1_

,2004 BRIDGET TAYLOR Nowyflic Notary Public, Befrien County, Ml My Commission Expires Jun. 10, 2007 My Commission Expires to AEP:NRC:4520-01 Evaluation of the Proposed Change References for this attachment are identified in Section 7.

1.0 DESCRIPTION

Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M), the licensee for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP)

Units I and 2, proposes to amend Facility Operating Licenses DPR-58 and DPR-74.

I&M requests review and approval, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(viii), of a change to the CNP licensing basis as described in the CNP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The change allows the use of a reinforcing bar (rebar) yield strength value based on measured material properties, as documented in I&M rebar acceptance tests, in control rod drive missile shield (missile shield) structural calculations.'

2.0 PROPOSED CHANGE

I&M proposes the addition of the following statement to UFSAR Section 5.2.3.

"Additionally, as-tested reinforcing bar strength was utilized for the determination of design structural capacity in bending, for the control rod drive missile shields."

The proposed change will allow the use of actual rebar yield strength, based on properly substantiated data, in the missile shield calculation.

3.0 BACKGROUND

During the period between September 1997 and December 2000, I&M performed a reanalysis of the CNP containment structures, including the missile shields. The missile shield reanalysis was performed using relevant design code provisions that I&M interpreted as allowing the use of measured yield strength, as documented in certified mill test reports (CMTRs), to accommodate the calculated loads with required safety factors.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) subsequently performed a detailed review of the methods and calculations used for the reanalysis and performed a design audit in January, 2002 (Reference 1). Based on the results of their review and audit, as augmented by a request for additional information (Reference 2) and.I&M's responses (References 3 and 4), the NRC staff concluded that, with the exception of the missile shields, I&M used acceptable methods and appropriate assumptions and design parameters in the containment structures reanalysis.

In Reference 1, the NRC staff stated that they had reasonable assurance that the missile shields above the upper reactor cavity will perform their intended function. However, the NRC staff concluded that the use of the CMTR rebar yield strength, in lieu of code specified material properties, in the structural calculations for the missile shields was not an acceptable method to restore the original design and licensing basis requirements and margins. In Reference 5, I&M to AEP:NRC:4520-01 Page 2 informed the NRC it would submit a license amendment requesting NRC approval of the use of CMTR data for the missile shield structural calculation.

I&M submitted a license amendment request to allow the use of CMTR data for missile shield structural calculations (Reference 6). Subsequently, in late February, 2004, I&M identified an NRC memorandum (Reference 7) that provided details of the NRC's concern with the use of CMTR data, and I&M withdrew that license amendment request (Reference 8). In withdrawing the license amendment request, I&M committed to submit another license amendment request that uses I&M's rebar acceptance test data to support the requested change. This amendment satisfies that commitment.

4.0 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

The missile shields are removable concrete structures that form the portion of the operating deck located above the reactor cavity. The operating deck is a part of the divider barrier that separates the lower containment from the upper containment.

Following a loss-of-coolant accident, a steam line break, or a feedwater line break, the divider barrier prevents the steam released during the accident from bypassing the ice condenser.

The design of the concrete structures at CNP was performed in accordance with American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-63, "Building Code for Reinforced Concrete." ACI 318-63 defines rebar yield strength as "Specified minimum yield strength or yield point of reinforcement in pounds per square inch. Yield strength or yield point shall be determined in tension according to applicable American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications." For CNP, the applicable ASTM specification for reinforcing steel is ASTM A 615-68.

Based on this definition, I&M believed that the use of CMTR yield strength for rebar was allowed by the CNP design basis.

ACI 318-63 does not provide specific guidance on evaluation of existing concrete structures.

However, later editions of relevant concrete codes do have provisions for such evaluations.

ACI 318-95, "Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete," and ACI 349-01, "Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures" both provide guidance on strength evaluations of existing structures.

Section 20 of both ACI 318-95 and ACI 349-01 discusses "Strength Evaluation of Existing Structures," and Section 20.2.4 states, "If required, reinforcement or tendon strength shall be based on tensile tests of representative samples of the material in the structure in question." This confirms the applicability of measured yield strength to nuclear applications.

Reference 7 contains a review performed by the NRC of I&M's use of test data for rebar strength in the ice condenser end wall calculation and noted that the reinforcing steel procurement specification requires that "... (I) the buyer (licensee) shall be provided with CMTRs for each heat of steel by the supplier in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A 615-68 specification, and (2) in addition, the buyer will have independent tests to AEP:NRC:4520-01 Page 3 performed to confirm compliance with ASTM A 615-68 for tensile, yield point, and percent elongation for each heat." Reference 7 further states, "During the audit, the licensee provided certified test results as discussed above that were performed by Calumet Steel (the supplier) to certify that the rebar meets minimum guaranteed yield strength of 40 ksi [40,000 pounds per square inch]. However, documentation of the "check" tests performed by the licensee's laboratory was not available. The use of limited test data (total of three, one from each heat) although adequate for demonstrating that rebar meets the original licensing basis minimum design strength of 40 ksi, is not justified to support a higher yield strength in support of revision to the licensing basis...." The ice condenser end walls were subsequently shown to meet design basis capacity without reliance on rebar yield strength determined from test data (Reference 4).

The discussion contained in Reference 7 for the missile shields presented a similar basis for not accepting rebar strength determined from test data. Reference 7 notes, "For each heat, only one yield strength test value is provided.

The licensee used rebar yield strength of 50.6 ksi to determine the moment capacity of the missile shield. The NRR [Nuclear Reactor Regulation]

staff's initial review does not consider the use of very limited test data to support higher yield strength values for the installed rebar to be an adequate justification for revising the licensing basis and, is therefore, unacceptable....

Furthermore, the licensee did not provide any testing data that was obtained from the tension tests performed on a rebar that has been used in the missile shield structure at CNP. Therefore, the licensee's use of a revised yield strength of 50.6 ksi, which is about 26% higher than the code required minimum guaranteed design-basis yield strength of 40 ksi, for the missile shield structure is unacceptable."

As stated in the Reference 7 discussion of the ice condenser end wall, and as discussed in Chapter 5 of the CNP UFSAR, in order to assure that reinforcing steel met appropriate specifications, I&M required that samples of rebar delivered to CNP be selected and tested to confirm compliance with the specified physical requirements and for certification of mill test reports (Attachment 1).

Two specimens were taken for each heat of material.

The I&M Concrete Reinforcement Bar Test Reports recorded two yield points and two tensile loads for each heat, which are divided by the nominal area of the bar (as given in ASTM A 615-68) to determine tensile strength and yield point in pounds per square inch (psi). This confirmatory rebar test data was not previously submitted to the NRC because I&M believed that the CMTR tensile test data provided appropriate justification for rebar strength beyond 40 ksi. This belief was based on the definition of yield strength given in ACI 318-63.

Rebar received at CNP during construction is traceable to specific locations in the plant via Mark Numbers, and by "How to be Used" notes on the Material Receipts.

The rebar used in the missile shields' construction have been traced to their respective heats. Test data from both the steel manufacturer and from site acceptance testing for each of these heats is summarized in Table 1. As noted previously, two site acceptance tests were performed following receipt of material at the site for each heat. The samples were tested in accordance with the pertinent provisions of ASTM A 615-68 for tensile strength, yield point, and percent elongation.

to AEP:NRC:4520-01 Page 4 I&M has calculated that the capability of the missile shields to withstand the bending moment imposed by a bounding 50 psi loss-of-coolant accident pressure differential, with a load factor (multiplier on pressure) of 1.5, can be achieved with a rebar yield strength of 46.5 ksi. I&M has evaluated the number 8 and number 1 1 rebar yield strength considering the site acceptance data, and determined a representative rebar strength value of 47,800 psi (47.8 ksi) for the rebar credited in the bending moment capacity of the missile shield structural calculation.

The determination was limited to number 8 and number I 1 rebar (number 5 rebar was also used in the missile shields) because only the number 8 and number 1 rebar are subjected to bending.

Additionally, the test data together with an industry paper ("Variability of Mechanical Properties of Reinforcing Bars," American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of the Structural Division, May 1979) lead to the conclusion that number 5 rebar has a higher yield strength value than number 8 and number 1. The data for the number 5 rebar were therefore excluded from the analysis. The calculation that analyzed the material test data and determined the appropriate rebar yield strength value is provided in Attachment 2.

Since this rebar yield strength value of 47.8 ksi based on actual material test data exceeds the required strength of 46.5 ksi, the missile shields meet design basis capacity requirements when the measured material properties from representative samples of the structure are considered.

5.0 REGULATORY SAFETY ANALYSIS 5.1 No Significant Hazards Consideration Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M) has evaluated whether a significant hazards consideration is involved with the use of yield strengths in structural calculations for the missile shields based on measured material properties as documented in I&M reinforcing bar (rebar) acceptance tests. The I&M evaluation was performed by focusing on the three standards set forth in 1 0 CFR 50.92, "Issuance of Amendment," as discussed below:

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No Probability of Occurrence of an Accident Previously Evaluated This is a change in the method of determining the acceptability of accommodating the pressure load following a loss-of-coolant accident. No physical changes are being made to the plant and no potential accident initiators are introduced by this change.

Thus, the probability of the occurrence of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.

to AEP:NRC:4520-01 Page 5 Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated There is reasonable assurance that the ability of control rod drive missile shields (missile shields) to maintain their structural capability and continue to function as a part of the divider barrier separating the lower containment from the upper containment is not impacted by this change.

The data obtained from rebar acceptance test reports demonstrate that the missile shields have adequate strength to accommodate the load that would be imposed under assumed accident conditions.

As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No The use of increased missile shield rebar yield strength for the missile shield structural capability under accident conditions does not alter the evaluation of the missile shields' structural capability during normal operation, the operational condition in which a new or different kind of accident would be initiated. The change does not physically alter plant components nor does it alter plant operation. The change does not adversely affect current system interfaces or create new interfaces that could result in an accident or malfunction of a different kind than previously evaluated.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No The margin of safety for the missile shields is provided by the factors that are applied to the individual loads determining the load imposed on the missile shields under accident conditions.

These code safety factors are sufficient to ensure that both anticipated and unanticipated loads can be withstood by the concrete structures. The use of yield strengths based on measured material properties as documented in the 1&M rebar acceptance tests for the missile shield structural evaluation has no effect on the margin of safety provided by the load safety factors.

1&M continues to use the same load factors that were used to license the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

to AEP:NRC:4520-01 Page 6 In summary, based upon the above evaluation, I&M has concluded that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c),

and, accordingly, a finding of "no significant hazards consideration" is justified.

5.2 Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Criteria The following criterion, which is contained in Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Section 1.4.1, is applicable to the missile shields:

"Those structures, systems and components of reactor facilities which are essential to the prevention, or the mitigation of the consequences, of nuclear accidents which could cause undue risk to the health and safety of the public shall be identified and then designed, fabricated, and erected to quality standards that reflect the importance of the safety function to be performed."

The missile shields will continue to meet applicable code requirements, thereby satisfying this criterion.

Based on the considerations discussed above, (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety ofthe public.

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

S A review has determined that the proposed amendment would change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR 20, or would change an inspection or surveillance requirement. However, the proposed amendment does not involve (i) a significant hazards consideration, (ii) a significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluent that may be released offsite, or (iii) a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

Accordingly, the proposed amendment meets the eligibility criterion for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the proposed amendment.

to AEP:NRC:4520-01P Page 7

7.0 REFERENCES

1. Letter from John F. Stang, NRC, to A. Christopher Bakken III, I&M, "Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2 - Regarding Containment Structure Conformance to Design and Licensing Basis Requirements," dated March 21, 2003.

2. Letter from John F. Stang, NRC, to A. Christopher Bakken III, I&M, "Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2 - Request for Additional Information Regarding Containment Structure Conformance to Design-Basis Requirements (TAC Nos. MB3603 and MB3604),"

dated May 31, 2002.

3. Letter from S. A. Greenlee, I&M, to NRC Document Control Desk, "Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request for Additional Information Regarding Containment Structure Conformance to Design Basis Requirements (TAC Nos. MB3603 and MB3604),"

AEP:NRC:2520, dated July 16, 2002.

4. Letter from S. A. Greenlee, I&M, to NRC Document Control Desk, "Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units I and 2, Supplement to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request for Additional Information Regarding Containment Structure Conformance to Design Basis Requirements (TAC Nos.

MB3603 and MB3604),"

AEP:NRC:2520-01, dated August 3, 2002.

5. Letter from J. B. Giessner, I&M, to NRC Document Control Desk, "Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Containment Structure Conformance to Design and Licensing Basis Requirements," AEP:NRC:3 520, dated April 24, 2003.

6. Letter from M. K. Nazar, I&M, to NRC Document Control Desk "Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, License Amendment Request to Use Yield Strength Determined From Measured Material Properties for Reinforcing Bar in Structural Calculations for Control Rod Drive Missile Shield," AEP:NRC:3520-01, dated November 12,2003.

7. Memorandum from L. B. Marsh, NRC, to G. E. Grant, NRC, "Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 - Response to Task Interfaces Agreement (TIA 2001-15) Regarding Evaluation of Containment Structure Conformance to Design-Basis Requirements (TAC NOS. MB3603 and MB3604)," dated January 13, 2003.

8. Letter from J. A. Zwolinski, I&M, to NRC Document Control Desk, "Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units I and 2, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Withdrawal of License Amendment Request to Use Yield Strength Determined From Measured Material Properties for Reinforcing Bar in Structural Calculations for Control Rod Drive Missile Shield,"

AEP:NRC:4520, dated March 2, 2004.

to AEP:NRC:4520-0iP Page 8 Table 1 Sununary of Tensile Testing for Rebar Used in Control Rod Drive Missile Shields Unit I Bar Yield Point from Tensile Strength Yield Point from Tensile Strength Heat No.

Size CMTR, psi from CMTR, psi I&M Site Bar Test from l&M Site Bar Report, psi Test Report, psi C34105

1. 11 53,205 89,423 50,897 84,679 52,115 84,743 B37160

1. 11 54,487 83,333 51,025 85,320 50,833 82,948 C35157*

1. 8 57,468 85,316 51,265 81,645 50,759 82,278 Unit 2 Bar Yield Point from Tensile Strength Yield Point from Tensile Strength Heat No.

Size CMTR, psi from CMTR, psi I&M Site Bar Test from I&M Site Bar I

Report, psi Test Report, psi B36171

1. 11 54,487 89,423 52,115 88,717 52,692 91,730 A37151

1. 11 50,641 84,615 50,448 80,961 50,192 81,282 B37340

1. 11 51,602 83,012 52,179.

87,948 49,487 80,256 A36334

1. 11 55,769 85,576 50,384 82,307 49,935 83,589 C35157*

1. 8 57,468 85,316 51,265 81,645 50,759 82,278

• Note: Heat C35157 is used in the missile shields of both Unit I and Unit 2

ATTACHMENT I TO AEP:NRC:4520-01 SPECIFICATION DCC CE 107 QCS, REVISION 3 REINFORCING STEEL SPECIFICATIONS

FORM cC to REV. l/70 II;IANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT

'A 1 9CAP. Irtfep,

.PL E: :1 F-SPECIFICATION COVER SHEET Specification No.

Dated Revision No.

Dated DCC CE 107 QCS 3

IMarch 26, 1969 ATTACHMENTS TITLE: Reinforcing Steel Specification.

SYSTEM: All Class I and II Concrete SCOPE OF REVISION: General This document contains proprietary information of American Electric Power Service Corporation, and is to be returned upon request.

Its contents may not be used for other than the expressed purpose for which loaned without the written consent of American Electric Power Service Corporation.

INTERNAL APPROVAL SIGNATURES ORIGINAL ISSUE R

Rev.3 f Rev.

Rev.

Author J.

C. Dar gag.9W l

Approved by

'I I

1 Quality Assurance George Lien CV
1
/'4 I

i Revision 3 t

iMarch 26, 1969

• t-

\\*v fi.

7 IND C'NUIA & MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY t*

DONALD C.

COOK. NUCLEAR. PLANT t.'

• n tUNITS I & 2 REI11WORCING STEEL SPECIFICATIONS All reinforcing shall be deformed new billet open hearth steel conforming to ASTM Specification A-615-68 Grade 4O.VX Reinforcing is to be furnished and fabricated in accordance with the instructions contained herein, the abovementioned ASTM Specifications, and Buyer's detail drawings and bar bending schedule-Form SD-3 (Dr-45). All bars that are to be Cadweld spliced shall be so fabricated that both ends will freely fit through the proper Cadweld sleeve. Buyer will furnish the fabricator one complete set of all such sleeves for checking purposed.

Buyer will also indicate on separate release sheets or by appropriate marking the bars to be Cadweld spliced. All reinforcing bars shall have U. S. standard markings for: (1) Producing Mill, (2) Bar size, (3) Type steel.

Bars to be spliced by the Cadweld splicing process may be sawed, sheared or flame cut providing that the Cadweld sleeve requirements are met.

CERTIFICATION TESTING AND ACCEPTANCE Buyer will require certified mill tests reports for each heat of steel in accordance with ASTM A-615-68 Specification requirements.

Mill tensile tests are to be made on the full section of bars as rolled.

In addition Buyer will have independent tests taken to confirm compliance with ASTMI A-615-68 for tensile strength, yield point, and percent elongation for each heat.

1. ;.No __o_

T3 0C c

C.

SnOec. NiO.£ Fabricator will be required to tag for identification and segregate from other reinforcing steel Buyer's steel requirements, which have been accepted as meeting the specifications.

All reinforcing steel requirements of Buyer must come from this tagged and segregated source and written certification to this effect shall be required for all fabricated steel delivered to the project site.

In addition to the written certification each bundle of reinforcing delivered to the project shall be tagged showing the heat number of the steel manufacturer (Mill).

"CHECK" TEST REQUIREMENTS Fabricator will be required to provide Buyer's job site testing laboratory at Bridgman, Michigan, with six (6) 3 feet long full size test specimens from each heat.,

The end 12" of any bar shall be excluded.

These specimens will be tested in accordance with the pertinent provisions of.ASTM A615-68 for tensile strength, yield point and percent elongation. With each new heat Buyer will provide fabricator approximate quantities and sizes about one (1) week prior to the receipt of the release for fabrication in order that Fabricator can immediately ship the required test specimens. It will be the Fabricator's responsibility to notify Buyer when new heats are to be used. Fabricator will be informed immediately when the test results are known.

D~c<

aemu So

I l

I 3-If two (2) specimens from the 'same heat fail the required ASTH tests, the entire heat shall be rejected.

COLOR CODING AND BUNDLE MARKING In addition to the tagging required for conformance to specifications Fabricator will be required to provide identification tagging on all steel shipped to the project site as set forth herein.

All reinforcing delivered to the project site requires two types of identification; (1) A color tag designating the area in the plant where the steel is to. be.used.

(2) Metal tags identifying each Mark Number of fabricated steel.

COLOR TAGS All releases for reinforcing requirements will bear a release number (RS-) each release ifill indicate the required color tag which is to be used to identify the area in the project where the material is to be used.

No writing should appear on the color tag.

Tags should be standard cardboard or heavy paper of the proper color securely fastened to each bundle of reinforcing.

These tags should be strong enough and waterproofed enough to arrive at destination in a condition which will enable segregation of the bundles and their placement..

in the correct working area.

Rev. No.

To 0CC CC Spec. '.Io.l07 OCS Page

BUNIDLE MARKING Fabricator is to bundle the fabricated steel in bundles of identical members, and to each bundle securely tie a rust resistant metal tag stenciled or a substitute acceptable to Buyer in the following manner:

(1) First identification is the release number, i.e.

a release identifiedas RS-25 will have as its first marking "RS-25".

(2)

The following designation is to be thle number of pieces in the bundle.

A bundle of 19 pieces should therefore show as the second part of the identification the marking "'19".

(3)

The bar size need not appear on the tag.

(1) Straight bars should show the length of the bar as the third marking.

A 15'-9" bar would show a third marking reading 1115911.

A bar 15'-11" would show a marking of "1511".

(5)

Formed bars are to bear as the last designation the mark number shovm on the release sheets.

Mark numbers usually appear as a combination of a letter and a numeral, i.e. "A-5".

An example of notations to appear oil a bundle of straight bars, as detailed above, would therefore be RS25 (space) 19 (space) 159 or RS25 (space) 19 (space) 1511. A bundle of formed steel would bear a stenciled tag reading RS25 (space) 19 (space) A5.

Rev. NTo.

To En

(

n Snpr. 1.n.07 JPnpo 4-nq,r"

... a I INSPECTION The Purchaser or Purchaser's representative shall have free access to the Fabricatorts shop at all times while work on Purchaser's material is being performed..

SCHEDULING OF DELIVERIES In all cased the delivery schedules called for indicate actual requirements.

Delays in delivery of the reinforcing steel result in extension of the construction schedule and cannot be tolerated.

It is therefore essential that Fabricator bear in mind that he must maintain deliveries as per the lead time schedule agreed to and which will become an essential part of any purchase order resulting from this inquiry.

Rev. ITo.

To QCC C_

Spec. No 1 s

ge

ATTACHMENT 2 TO AEP:NRC:45.0-01 CALCULATION SD-040(3-O101 UNIT I & 2 CONTROL ROD DRIVE MISSILE SHIELD REINFORCING STEEL YIELD STRENGTH. REVISION 0

COOK NUCLEAR PLANT Page 1 CALCULATION COVER SHEET Total pages including attachments - 140 CALCULATION NO.

SD-040303-001

}

REVISION NO.

0 SAFETY RELATED:

0 YES a NO UNIT NO.

1 & 2 SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL CALC:

El YES 0 NO SYSTEM Code:

CNTMT AEPNG FUNCTIONAL AREA:

DES TITLE:

UNIT 1 & 2 CONTROL ROD DRIVE MISSILE SHIELD REINFORCING STEEL YIELD STRENGTH REASON FOR REVISION:

Initial Issue Limitation: The value determined from this calculation may only be used without limitation following receipt of a Safety Evaluation from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Do any assumptions require later verification?

D YES (check Calc status "Restricted Use") 0 NO If YES, specify tracking Condition Report:

Calculation Status (check one)

- Document/Rev Superseded (replaced) by this Calculation 0

Unrestricted Use (Approved in NDIS)

None El Restricted Use (Hold in NDIS)

El Void El Superseded (Specify superseding doc)

By:

Preparing Organization: l1 AEPNG lOOther (specify)

PREPARED BY:

lX 0 Multiple (see next sheets)

Yoe pa 2 MaI REVIEW METHOD:

0 Detailed Review El Alternate Calculation 4-REVIEWED BY:

a Multiple (see next sheets)

I 4-APPROVED BY:

(Manager or Designee)

I I

This form is derived from 12 EHP 5040 DES.003. Cdlculaions

r Calculation Number:

SD-040303-001 Revision Number 0

Page-2 This formn is derived from 12 EHP 5040 DES.003. Ckculadons

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 3 1.0 Table of Contents Item Pages Calculation Cover Sheet 1

Multiple Preparers and Reviewers 2

1.0 Table of Contents 3

2.0 List of Effective Pages 4

3.0 Purpose/Objective 5-6 4.0 Design Input 6-7 5.0 References 8

6.0 Methodology 9-12 7.0 Acceptance Criteria 12 8.0 Assumptions and Limitations 13-15 9.0 Calculations 16-23 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 24 Attachments Pages - Chronological Events for the Unit 1 & 2 Missile Shields 1 - Data Sheets Linking the Reinforcing Steel on the Placement drawings to the Heat of Steel No.

8 - Missile Shield Reinforcing Steel Placement Drawings 9 - ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, "Variability of Mechanical Properties of Reinforcing Bars" 17 - Configuration Document Impact (CDI) Assessment 5 - D1T-B-02851-00 31 - Site Reinforcing Steel Material Receipt Documents 32 -Table T-1 lb from Reference #3 2 - Excel spreadsheets used for computations 5 0 - Test for Normality Computations 4 1 - Calculation Review Comment Form 1 2 - DRB Approval Letter 1

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 4 2.0 List of Effective Pages Pages Revision Pages 1-24 0 -1 page 0 - 8 pages 0 - 9 pages 0 -17 pages 0 - 5 pages 0 - 31 pages 0 - 32 pages 0 - 2 pages 0 - 5 pages 0 0 - 4 pages 0 1 - 1 pages 0 2-1 page 0

N

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 5 3.0 Purpose /Objectives The purpose of this calculation is to determine an appropriate/conservative yield strength value for reinforcing bar (rebar) used in the structural calculation for the Control Rod Drive Missile Shields (SD-010307-001, See Reference 1). Throughout this calculation, Control Rod Drive Missile Shields will be referred to as missile shields. The appropriate/

conservative yield strength value determined will be for the rebars used to resist the bending stresses in the missile shield concrete sections. Reference 1 indicates that the rebar yield point pertaining to bending stresses is the critical issue concerning the structural design of the missile shields. The rebars used to resist the bending stresses in the missile shields are the #8 and #11 rebars; therefore, the #8 and #11 rebars will be the only bars reviewed in this calculation. The #5 rebars that are in the missile shields to resist shearing stresses will not be reviewed in this calculation. The justification for excluding the #5 rebars will be given in Section 8.0, "Assumptions and Limitations", of this calculation.

The selection of the rebar yield strength value will be determined based on consideration of the Certified Mill Test Report (CMTR) data and I&M rebar site acceptance data. This will be accomplished by evaluating the appropriateness of the data, analyzing the data, and making a recommendation as to an appropriate/ conservative rebar yield strength value.

I&M had previously proposed using a yield strength value for rebar based on CMTR data only. Per NRC Letter N2003014 (See Reference 12), the NRC stated that the use of CMTR data only is insufficient for the determination of an appropriate yield strength value. Per Letter AEP:NRC:4520 (See Reference 13), I&M has informed the NRC that the I&M rebar site acceptance data is available and will now be included with the CMTR data for determination of an appropriate yield strength for the rebar. Once the appropriate yield strength value is determined, I&M will seek a license amendment for the acceptance of this yield strength value.

The yield strength value determined from this calculation is only applicable to the missile shields of Unit 1 and Unit 2. The value determined from this calculation may only be used without limitation following receipt of a Safety Evaluation from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The missile shields are part of the containment internal structures (System Code CNTMT). The missile shields form part of the divider barrier, and are safety-related structures.

This calculation is an initial issue that does not supercede or supplement any previous calculation.

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev.0 Page 6 Note: AEP, I&M, Cook Plant, and site are used synonymously within this calculation.

4.0 Design Input The design input includes the CMTRs from the rebar manufacturer that provide the yield points and the tensile strength for each individual heat of steel and the I&M acceptance tests performed at the Cook Plant for yield point and tensile strength on these same individual heats of steel for the #8 and #11 rebar that resist bending stresses in the missile shields.

4.1) CMTR values from the rebar manufacturer:

Heat No.

Bar Size Unit Yield Point Tensile (psi)

Strength (psi)

C34105

1. 11 1

53,205 89,423 B37160

1. 11 1

54,487 83,333 C35157

1. 8 1&2 57,468 85,316 B36171

1. 11 2

54,487 89,423 A37151

1. 11 2

50,641 84,615 B37340

1. 11 2

51,602 83,012 A36334

1. 11 2

55,769 85,576 4.2) I&M site acceptance tests for yield point and tensile strength of the rebar. Two individual tests were performed at the Cook Plant site for each individual heat of steel.

Heat No.

Bar Size Unit Yield Point YieldPoint Tensile Tensile Test #1 Test #2 Strength Strength (psi)

(psi)

Test #1 Test #2 (psi)

(psi)

C34105

1. 11 1

50,897 52,115 84,679 84,743 B37160 IXl 1

51,025 50,833 85,320 82,948 C35157

1. 8 1 &2 51,265 50,759 81,645 82,278 B36171

1. 11 2

52,115 52,692 88,717 91,730 A37151

1. 11 2

50,448 50,192 80,961 81,282 B37340

1. 11 2

52,179 49,487 87,948 80,256 A36334

1. 11 2

50,384 49,935 82,307 83,589

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 7 The above CMTR values for yield point and tensile strength were obtained from data sheets submitted by the rebar manufacturer when the CMTRs and test specimens were delivered to the Cook Plant site in 1972. I&M site acceptance test values for yield point and tensile strength were taken from Concrete Reinforcement Bar Test Reports. The CMTR and the I&M test data sheets are contained within DIT-B-02851-00 (Attachment 6). The plant material receipt packages for the rebar included in the missile shields are attached to this calculation as Attachment 7.

The traceability for the above CMTR values and the I&M site acceptance test values is shown in flow chart form as Attachment 1, "Chronological Events for the Unit I & 2 Missile Shields", attached to this calculation. Attachment 2 provides data sheets for the rebar for each heat number that supplements the data shown in the tables above. These data sheets provide a link for the rebar from the individual heats of steel to where the rebar is detailed on the reinforcement placement drawings (See Attachment 3, References 4 through 1 1). This information provides a link to the location of each individual rebar resisting bending stresses that is installed in the missile shields. Some of the data included on the Attachment 2 data sheets contain bar mark numbers. These bar mark numbers correspond to bar bending details contained in the drawings included as. Attachment 2 data sheets also contain data on unbent (straight) bars.

Unbent bars are not assigned bar mark numbers.

The reinforcing steel bar lists received from the rebar manufacturer contained references linking all of the pieces of rebar to a respective heat of steel number. An extensive review of the reinforcing steel placement drawings (Reference Nos. 4 through 11) was made for both Units 1 & 2 to ensure that every piece of reinforcing steel resisting bending stresses in the missile shields was linked to a specific heat of steel number.

All of the reinforcing steel used in the missile shields was fabricated to the ASTM A615-68 standard and all of the reinforcing steel was specified to be Grade 40.

Reference 19 is~the version of the reinforcing steel specification that was in effect during the construction of the missile shields. It is included to establish the requirements in effect at the time of construction.

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 8 5.0 References 6

U 0

CRev, c2

Edition, u

Status Document Number/Title Date, etc I

App.

Calculation No. SD-010307-001, "Design Basis Analysis of Unit I Rev. 1, E

l E and 2 Reactor Cavity Missile Shield Blocks" CS-02 2

App.

DIT-B-02851-00, "Summary of Tensile Testing Results for Rebars 02123/04 Used in Control Rod Drive Missile Shields for Units I and 2" 3

Ref.

"Applying Statistics" Feb.,

O E]

NUREG-1475 1994 4

Drawing No. DC-1 10152, "Unit I Containment Bldg. Missile Rev. 0 0 Ell U App.

Shield. Rebar placement drawing" (Attachment #3) 5 Drawing No. DC-123205, "Unit I Containment Bldg. Missile Rev. 0 i App-.

Shield, Standard rebar bending details" (Attachment #3) 6 Drawing No. DC-123206, "Unit I Containment Bldg. Missile Rev. 0 1

El E App.

Shield, Bent rebar list" (Attachment #3) 7 Drawing No. DC-123207, "Unit I Containment Bldg. Missile Rev. 0 0 El E App.

Shield, Straight rebar list" (Attachment #3) 8 Drawing No. DC-1 10153, "Unit 2 Containment Bldg. Missile Rev. 0 E Li i App.

Shield, Rebar placement drawing" (Attachment #3) 9 Drawing No. DC-123202, "Unit 2 Containment Bldg. Missile Rev.0 1

El 0 App.

Shield, Standard rebar bending details" (Attachment #3) 10 Drawing No. DC-123203, "Unit 2 Containment Bldg. Missile Rev. 0 d

E l App.

Shield, Bent rebar list" (Attachment #3) 11 Drawing No. DC-123204, "Unit 1 Containment Bldg. Missile Rev. 0 H

El 1 App.

Shield, Straight rebar list" (Attachment #3) 12 Ref.

NRC Letter N2003014, "Regarding Containment Structure 03/21/03 l]

E EL Conformance to Design and Licensing Basis" 13 Ref.

AEP Letter AEP:NRC:4520, "Withdrawal of License Amendment 03/02/04 l gl Ed Request to Use Yield Strength Determined From Measured Material Properties for Reinforcing Bar in Structural Calculations for Control Rod Drive Missile Shield" 14 Ref.

ASCE Journal of the Structural Division "Variability of Mechanical

May, Z E ll Properties of Reinforcing Bars" (Attachment #4) 1979 15 App.

Drawing No. 1-2-3186C. Containment Building Missile Shield Plan Rev. 13 E

1El

& Sections Masonry" 16 App.

Drawing No. 1-2-3186N, "Containment Building Missile shield Rev. 0 E

C E

Cover Sections and Details Reinforcing" 17 App.

Drawing No.,1-2-3186P, "Containment Building Missile Shield Rev. 8 A

LI3 Misc. Steel Frames & Details Masonry" 18 Ref.

ASTM A615-68, "Deformed Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete 1968 l LI Reinforcment" 19 Ref.

DCC-CE-107-QCS, "Reinforcing Steel Specifications" Rev. 3, 1

03/26/69 20 Ref.

ACI Standard 318-99 1999 h

The above applicable references have been reviewed for pending changes in DOCUMENTUM and for pending condition reports in ECAP. Nothing was uncovered in these reviews that would impact this calculation.

This form is derived from 12-EHP-5040-DES-003. Clcularions

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 9 6.0 Methodologv As shown in Section 4.0, there is available data for yield points on the rebar that was installed in the missile shields. This data includes the CMTR values from the rebar manufacturer and includes the I&M site acceptance tests. The CMTR values will not be used in this calculation. The justification for excluding the CMTR values is given in Section 8.0 of this calculation, "Assumptions and Limitations".

This calculation will consider the 14 data points from the I&M site acceptance tests.

These 14 data points will first be tested for normality to determine if these data points approximate a normal distribution. The statistical test used for the testing for normality is listed below.

Following the statistical tests for normality, the I&M acceptance test data will be evaluated by performing either numerical review or statistical manipulations of the data and the results of this evaluation will determine a value for the rebar yield point that is both appropriate and conservative to be used in the structural calculation for the missile shields (SD-010307-001, See Reference 1). The numerical review of the data is listed below as Method 1 and the statistical manipulations of the data to be performed are listed below as Methods 2 and 3.

All statistical manipulations will be performed utilizing the statistical analysis tools available in Microsoft Excel (Office 97 and/or Office 2000).

6.1 Testing the data for Normality.

The I&M acceptance test data will be first tested for normality to determine if the 14 points of data approximate a normal distribution. Several textbook methods for goodness-of-fit tests such as the Chi Squared Test, the Least Squares Fit using the associated Correlation Coefficient, the Kolmogorav-Smirnov Test, and the Anderson-Darling Test were considered and ruled out because of the small sample size of 14 data points. The following goodness-of-fit test was identified to be appropriate for use in verifying the assumption that I&M test data points approximate a normal distribution. The goodness-of-fit test chosen was the W-Test. As a complementary check of the results obtained from the W-Test, the I&M acceptance test data was evaluated for goodness-of-fit to a beta distribution.

• W-Test The W-Test is a goodness-of-fit test that is described on Pages 7-9 through 7-12 of Reference 3 and is not repeated here.

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 10 Beta Distribution Through a statistical software product, Crystal Ball 2000, the I&M acceptance test data was evaluated for goodness-of-fit to a beta distribution. Crystal Ball is not a QA approved software product for use at Cook Nuclear Plant. Therefore, the results from a Crystal Ball statistical analysis cannot be used in making a design basis or licensing basis decision. It can be used as a complementary check of the results obtained from the W-Test.

6.2 Evaluation of I&M Acceptable Test Data Three methods will be considered in determining the appropriate rebar yield point.

Method 1 Method 1 will consist of a numerical review of the I&M acceptance test data and selection of the lowest yield strength value from any of the individual data points.

The following Methods 2 & 3 will consider combinations of the I&M site acceptance data points. As determined in Section 9.0, these values approximate a normal distribution.

Following on Page 11 is a graphic illustration of a normal distribution. The mean and standard deviations-will be calculated per Reference 3 and, per Page 5-20 of Reference 3, (n-i) will be used in the formula for standard deviation since the mean value is not known and has to be calculated. Table T-1 lb of Reference 3 will be used to determine the lower interval that contains 95% of the population with 95% confidence. Refer to Section 8.3 of Assumptions and Limitations for the justification for use of the 95/95 tolerance limit.

Following is a list of the definition of terms and of the formulas to be used in Methods 2 & 3 to calculate average value, standard deviation, and the lower rebar yield strength of the rebar population.

n = number of samples involved in the calculation Average = X = the sample mean = (summation of all samples)In (Reference 3, Page 5-4)

SDEV=

(Each Sample-X)2 n-i (Reference 3, Page 5-20)

K = A One-sided tolerance limit factor for a normal distribution given in Table T-1 lb of Reference 3 ). Values will be used for 0.95 confidence level for 0.95 of the population.

The lower interval of a population = X - (K*SDEV)

Normal Frequency Distribution Curve SDEV = Standard Deviation Calculation No. SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Page 11

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev.0 Page 12 Method 2 Method 2 considers the 14 I&M site acceptance test data points. Using the formulas listed above, the mean (average) and standard deviation is calculated for the 14 data points and one-sided tolerance. limits are developed using Table T-1 lb of Reference 3 to determine the lower interval rebar yield point that contains 95% of the population with 95% confidence.

Method 3 Method 3 will split the I&M site acceptance test data points between Unit I & 2. Since two points of the 14 data points are common to both Units 1 & 2, Unit I will consider 6 data points and Unit 2 will consider 10 data points. Each of the Unit 1 & 2 data points will be analyzed as outlined in Method 2 using the formulas listed above.

7.0 Acceptance Criteria There are no acceptance criteria associated with this calculation since its purpose is to determine an appropriate/conservative rebar yield strength value from rebar test data.

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 13 8.0 Assumptions and Limitations 8.1 Justification for excluding the #5 missile shield rebar from consideration.

As stated in Section 3.0, the.#5 missile shield rebar will not be considered in this calculation per the following:

i)

The #5 rebar in the missile shield concrete structure resists shearing stresses. The Reference I structural calculation has evaluated all shearing stresses satisfactorily with the #5 rebar yield point taken at 40,000 psi.

ii)

Refer to the ASCE paper that is included with this calculation as Attachment 4.

The discussion beginning on Page 8 of 17 concerning "Effect of Bar Diameter" along with the graph plotted in Fig. 3a lead to the conclusion that smaller #5 bars tend to have higher yield strengths than the larger #8 and #11 bars. This is true for rebars manufactured before this paper was written in 1979.

Per the above bases, the #5 rebar yield strength(s) will not be considered for the determination of an appropriate/conservative rebar yield point value to be used in the structural calculation for the missile shields.

8.2 Justification for Excluding CMTR Test Values Following are the findings of the comparison between the CMTR and the I&M Site Acceptance test values for rebar yield point:

i)

Refer to the ASCE paper in Attachment 4. The discussion beginning on Page 7 of 17 concerning "Effect of Rate of Loading" states that mill tests on steel specimens are generally carried out at much greater strain rates than the steel will encounter in a structure subjected to static loads. For this reason, mill tests tend to overestimate the yield strength.

Table 2 on Page 10 of 17 of Attachment 4 demonstrates that the mill yield strengths 'are higher than those yield strengths produced by laboratory tests.

In all cases shown on this Table 2 for various sizes of rebar, the mill tests are higher.

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 14 The CMTR test values and the I&M acceptance test values for yield point given in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 on Page 5 shows that for each individual heat number, the CMTR test value for yield point is higher that the I&M value in all cases except one. For Heat No. B37340, one of the I&M test values was higher than the CMTR test value. The other I&M test value for Heat No. B37340 was less than the CMTR value. Therefore, thirteen out of the fourteen I&M test values for the various heat numbers were lower than the CMTR values.

This finding agrees with the statement in Attachment 4 which is the mill tests for rebar yield strength are generally higher than lab test values for rebars manufactured before 1979.

ii)

A review of the CMTR test results and the I&M site acceptance test results for yield point on Page 5 shows the following information:

CMTR tests Maximum Value = 57,468 psi Minimum Value = 50,641 psi Range = 6,827 psi I&M site acceptance tests Maximum Value = 52,692 psi Minimum Value = 49,487 psi Range = 3,205 psi The above review indicates that the I&M site acceptance test values with a narrower range are grouped closer to the mean or average value of the test values. Therefore, the I&M test values consisting of 14 data points have less scatter than do the CMTR test values.

Summary of comparison of CMTR Test Values and I&M Site Acceptance Test Values for Rebar Yield Point.

CMTR values tend to be an overestimation of the yield point according to the ASCE paper in Attachment 4. The 14 I&M site test values for yield point tend to be grouped closer to the mean or average value of the test values. Therefore, per engineering judgement, the 14 I&M site acceptance test values are judged as being more representative test values to be used in the determination of an appropriate/conservative value for the yield point of rebar to be used in the structural calculation for the missile shields.

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 15 Therefore, the 14 I&M site acceptance test values for yield point will be used in this calculation and the CMTR test values for yield point will be discounted.

This is also consistent with later editions of ACI-318 code (e.g. ACI 318-99) that provides for evaluation of existing structures utilizing material test properties and values, i.e., as-built information.

8.3 The use of a 95/95 tolerance limit is reasonable since structures inherently transfer load internally, and it is not absolutely critical that any specific rebar have greater than a specified strength. The Unit 1 & 2 missile shields have 269-8 and

1. 11 rebars in each unit that resist bending stresses. With a 95/95 tolerance limit, 255 of these rebars will have a greater than specified strength and 14 rebars will have a lesser than specified strength. Collectively, the rebar will act together and a 95/95 tolerance limit provides reasonable assurance that collective rebar strength is above a determined value.

Page 3-20 of Reference 3 states that many federal agencies have adopted the 5%

level of significance in risk analysis. This agrees with 95% confidence level that is being used in this calculation.

8.4 The limitation associated with this calculation is that the output cannot be utilized for design basis uses until approval is obtained from the NRC and then it can only be used for the missile shields.

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 16 9.0 Calculations 9.1 Perform Statistical Test to Demonstrate that the Results Obtained During the Two I&M Site Acceptance Tests for Yield Point Provide Data that Approximates a Normal Distribution. Taking into Consideration the Individual Heat Numbers.

An inherent assumption concerning the data obtained during I&M site acceptance tests for yield point (also referred to in this section as sample data) was whether or not the data approximated a normal distribution with reasonable confidence that the sample data is representative of the population. Verification of this assumption was essential in order to have assurance that the results obtained by methods 2 and 3 were reasonable. This section provides verification of this assumption., ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, "Variability of Mechanical Properties of Reinforcing Bars", suggests that yield test strength data is representative of a normal distribution (pages 4 and 5 attachment 4). Based on this recommendation, it was decided that Unit 1 & 2 sample data was evaluated for goodness-of-fit to a normal distribution.

There are several textbook methods (i.e., goodness-of-fit tests) for establishing whether or not a set of sample data approximates a given distribution. The most commonly used method is the Chi Squared test. However, there was not enough sample data to accurately perform and use the results of this test. Other goodness-of-fit tests such as, the Least Squares Fit using the associated Correlation Coefficient, Kolmogorov-Smimov and Anderson-Darling were also ruled out for the same reasons. A literature search on goodness-of-fit tests was performed and the following tests were identified to be appropriate considering the sample size of the data and the simplicity of the goodness-of-fit techniques.. The goodness-of-fit test selected to verify the assumption that the sample data approximates a normal distribution is the W-Test.

An observation concerning the I&M site acceptance test sample data. Although the sample data is small, the data has been determined to be representative of the heat and the manufacturing process used to fabricate the rebar. Additionally, the sample data is believed to be a random; unbiased sample of the rebar due to the requirements placed on the manufacturer in providing rebar for the I&M acceptance tests and the methods used to select samples of rebar and perform the I&M site acceptance tests.

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 17 W-Test The W-test is a goodness-of-fit test described in reference 3 ("Applying Statistics",

NUREG-1475). NUREG-1475 provides a step-by-step approach for performing this test.

This step-by-step approach was applied using the data obtained during I&M site acceptance tests for yield point. The results obtained by using this technique substantiate that the data obtained from the I&M site acceptance tests for yield point for both Units 1 & 2 and for each of the Units, individually, approximate a normal distribution. The results are shown on pages 2 thru 4 of Attachment 10. The W-test is described in detail in NUREG-1475, therefore, a description of the test is not provided.

Beta Distribution, ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, "Variability of Mechanical Properties of Reinforcing Bars", suggests that yield test strength data is also representative of a beta distribution (pages 4 and 5 attachment 4). Based on this recommendation, the Unit 1 & 2 sample data was evaluated for goodness-of-fit to a beta distribution. If the results of the goodness-of-fit tests are satisfactory, then the 95% lower confidence bound could be used to provide a complementary check on the results of methods 2 and 3.

However, it is difficult to ascertain appropriate alpha and beta parameters to analyze the sample data with respect to the Beta distribution. This is especially true of small sample sizes. Therefore, a statistical software product, Crystal Ball 2000, was used for these analyses. Although the primary purpose of Crystal Ball 2000 is to perform Monte Carlo simulations, it also provides for distribution fitting and a host of other common statistical functions and methods. Crystal Ball 2000 is a commercial software application and the software is classified under CNP software control process as "No Risk" (formerly "exempt"). The results obtained by using the software cannot be used for making a design basis or licensing basis decision, but the results can be used to provide a complementary check of the methods and results that are used for making these decisions.

The methods employed by the software are documented in the user manual, and a step-by-step process for performing statistical goodness-of-fit tests, along with explanations and acceptance criteria are also provided in the manual. This allows for independent verification of the results obtained by Crystal Ball 2000. Given the caveats and understanding of the discussion above, the process to determine a goodness-of-fit to a beta distribution using the sample data and the results obtained using Crystal Ball 2000 are described below.

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 18 Chapter 3 of the Crystal Ball 2000 software manual provides an easy to follow process for using the distribution fitting feature. A summary of that process, the sample data used, and the results are provided below.

The 14 data points obtained during I&M site acceptance tests for yield point strength for Units 1 and 2 and used in this analysis are listed below.

Unit I & 2 Yield Point Strength 49,487 49,935 50,192 50,384 50,448 50,759 50,833 50,897 51,025 51,265 52,115 52,115 52,179 52,692 The average of the sample data was computed to use as a surrogate assumption. This is not used in this process; however, a separate value is required by Crystal Ball 2000 for defining an assumption.

CELL was selected in Crystal Ball 2000 menu and DEFINE ASSUMPTION was selected from the pull down menu. The Beta distribution was then selected from the Distribution Gallery provided in Crystal Ball 2000. FITwas then selected from the Distribution Gallery to get the Fit Distribution menu.

Active Worksheet was selected in the Fit Distribution menu and the cell ranges from the worksheet containing the above sample data were entered into the Range.

Beta Distribution was chosen in the Fit Distribution 2 menu and Chi-Square Test was also selected. The check box for Show Comparison Chart and Goodness-of-Fit Statistics was checked.

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 19 The OK button was selected and the results of the Chi-Square goodness-of-fit test were displayed. The results indicated, ** Insufficient Datafor Chi-Square Test**.

This process was repeated for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the Anderson Darling Test. The results for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated that the data was not a good fit. According to the Crystal Ball 2000 manual a value less than 0.03 indicates a close fit, the result using the sample data was 0.1614. The results forthe Anderson-Darling test did indicate a close goodness-of-fit, again using the criteria provided in the Crystal Ball manual. The criteria provided states, "Generally a value less then 1.5 indicates a close fit. The value obtained for the Anderson-Darling test using the sample data was 0.3389.

Since the Anderson-Darling is more appropriate for goodness-of-fit tests at the extreme tails of the distribution and since this calculation is attempting to determine a minimum value, it was believed to be appropriate to consider the results of the Anderson-Darling test as reasonable evidence of the goodness-of-fit of the sample data to a beta distribution.

The ACCEPT button in Crystal Ball 2000 menu was then selected. Crystal Ball 2000 then presents a window of the frequency chart depicting the sample data in a beta distribution and several parameters of the distribution.

To correspond with the 95/95 confidence intervals used in methods 2 and 3, the PARM button in the window was selected and the parameters displayed were changed to match the 95% confidence interval. The three parameters input into the Choose Custom Parameters window were, 2.5, 50 and 95 for the I", 2nd and 3Yd parameters, respectively.

The 1St parameter, 2.5, represents the lower bound of the 95 percent confidence interval, the 3rd parameter. For the second parameter, a value of 50 was chosen since this represents the median value.

The results provided in Crystal Ball 2000 for the 95% confidence intervals and the median values are provided below.

Crystal Ball Results of Beta Distribution for the Sample Data 95% lower 49156 Median (50%)

51027 95% upper 52574

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 20 The results obtained correspond very closely to the results obtained by methods 1, 2 and 3. Although the results do not provide for a definitive design basis conclusion, the results do provide a complementary validation of the results obtained by methods 2 and 3.

Based on the results obtained by the W-Test discussed above, the sample data representing the results of the I&M site acceptance tests for yield point were confirmed to approximate a normal distribution.

9.2 Perform the numerical review and/or the statistical manipulations of the 14 points of I&M Site Acceptance Data to Determine an appropriate/conservative rebar vield point value for the missile shields.

Method 1 Method 1 consists of a numerical review of the I&M acceptance data and selection of the lowest yield strength value from any of the individual data points. The individual data points for yield strength for I&M site acceptance tests are summarized below:

I&M site acceptance tests for yield point and tensile strength of the rebar. Two individual tests were performed at the Cook Plant site for each individual heat of steel.

Heat No.

Bar Size Unit Yield Point YieldPoInt Tensile Tensile Test #1 Test #2 Strength Strength (psi)

(psi)

Test #1 Test #2 (psi)

(psi)

C34105

1. 11 1

50,897 52,115 84,679 84,743 B37160

1. 11 1

51,025 50,833 85,320 82,948 C35157

1. 8 1&2 51,265 50,759 81,645 82,278 B36171

1. 11

.2 52,115 52,692 88,717 91,730 A37151

1. 11 2

50,448 50,192 80,961 81,282 B37340

1. 11 2

52,179 49,487 87,948 80,256 A36334

1. 11 2

50,384 49,935 82,307 83,589 By inspection, the lowest value from any yield point test is 49,487 psi. Therefore, Method 1 suggests using a rebar strength value of 49,487 psi.

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 21 Method 2 Method 2 considers I&M site acceptance data for both Unit 1 & 2. There will be a total of 14 data points for both units. As determined previously, this data approximates a normal distribution. The mean and standard deviation for each population will be calculated per Excel spreadsheets. The Excel spreadsheets and cell formulas will be attached to this calculation as Attachment 9.

The list of the definition of terms and of the formulas to be used in Methods 2 & 3 to calculate average value, standard deviation, and the lower rebar yield strength of the rebar population is shown in Section 6.2 on Page 10. For convenience, these terms and formulas are repeated below.

n = number of samples involved in the calculation Average = X = the sample mean = (summation of all samples)/n (Reference 3, Page 5-4)

SDEV =

E (Each Sample -X)2 n-I (Reference 3, Page 5-20)

K = A One-sided tolerance limit factor for a normal distribution given in Table T-1lb of Reference 3 ). Values will be used for 0.95 confidence level for 0.95 of the population.

The lower interval of a population = X - (K*SDEV)

Table M2 (Units 1 & 2)

Yield Yield Heat No.

Point Point Bar J est #1 Test #2

_(psi)

(psi)

C34105

1. 11 50,897 52,115 B37160

1. 11 51,025 50,833 C35157

1. 8 51,265 50,759 B36171

1. 11 52,115 52,692 A37151

1. 11 50,448 50,192 B37340

1. 11 52,179 49,487 A36334

1. 11 50,384 49,935 v

Average 51,023 Standard Deviation 947.04

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 22 K=2.614 Min Yield Stress = 51,023 -(2.614*947.04) = 48.547 psi With 95% confidence, the interval of 48,547 psi to infinity contains 95% of the population.

Therefore, Method 2 suggests using a rebar strength of 48,547 psi.

Method 3 Method 3 will split the I&M site acceptance test data between Unit 1 & 2. Since two points of data are points common to both Units I & 2, Unit 1 will consider 6 data points and Unit 2 will consider 10 data points. Each of the Unit 1 & 2 data points will be analyzed as outlined in Method 2.

Unit 1 Data Table M3-1 I&M I&M Determined Determined Bar Yield Point, Yield Point, Heat Size p

.sipsi C34105

1. 11 50,897 52,115 B37160

1. 11 51,025 50,833 C35157

1. 8 51,265 50,759 AVG 51,149 SDEV 50S.46 Average = X = 51,149 psi SDEV = 505.46 K=3.708 Min Yield Stress = 51.149 -(3.708*505.46) = 49,275 psi

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 23 With 95% confidence, the interval of 49,275 psi to infinity contains 95% of the population.

Unit 2 Data Table M3-2 I&M i&M Determined Determined Yield Point, Yield Point, Heat Bar Size PsI psi C35157

1. 8 51,265 50,759 B36171

1. 11 52.115 52,692 A37151

1. 11 50.448 50.192 B37340

1. 11 52,179 49,487 A36334

1. 11 50,384 49,935 AVG 50,946 SDEV 1072.65 Average = X = 50,946 psi SDEV = 1072.65 K = 2.911 Min Yield Stress = 50,946 -(2.911*.072.65) = 47,824 psi With 95% confidence, the interval of 47,824 psi to infinity contains 95% of the population.

Therefore, Method 3 suggests using a rebar strength of 47,824 psi.

Calculation No. SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Page 24

10. Conclusions and Recommendations Summarize the results obtained in Section 9.0, Calculations.

Method 1-low value rebar yield point number = 49,487 psi Method 2 - contained 14 data points for both Units 1 & 2 Sample Mean = Average = 51,023 psi Standard Deviation = SDEV = 947.07 psi Minimum Rebar Yield Point = 48,547 psi (at 95/95)

Method 3 - considered Unit I & 2 separately. It considered 6 data points from Unit 1 and 10 data points from Unit 2.

Unit 1 Data Sample Mean = Average = 51,149 psi Standard Deviation = SDEV = 505.46 psi Minimum Rebar Yield Point = 49,275 psi (at 95/95)

Unit 2 Data Sample Mean = Average = 50,946 psi Standard Deviation = SDEV = 1,072.65 Minimum Rebar Yield Stress = 47,824 psi. (at 95/95)

Based on the three methods examined by this calculation, the lowest rebar strength value determined was 47,824 psi. This calculation concludes that 47,800 psi is an appropriate/conservative rebar yield strength value to use for the #2 and # 11 bars in the structural calculation (SD-010307-001, See Reference 1) for the missile shields.

The outcome of this calculation aligns with the Purpose/Objective previously stated.

Initial Structural Engineering Design was performed in 1972 for the missile shields. The size of rebar, the number of rebar, and the rebar configuration was determined for the missile shields. The rebar yield strength was specified to be 40=000 psi.

The Structural Engineering Drawing was prepared showing all Information that was determined in the Structural Engineering Design.

After manufacturing the reinforcing steel.

The Ceco Corporation performed certified mill test reports for each heat of steel. These certified mill test reports complied with the ASTM A-615-68 specification. The mill tests were satisfactory.

After the reinforcing steel placement had been completed,the rebar placement was verified by a QC inspector. Each rebar was verified to be in the right location by comparing its mark number to the location specified on the placement drawing.

Once the final 00 Inspection for reba placement was completed, the concrete was then placed. Concrete was placed in 1972. This ended the construction phase for the missile shields.

Prior to delivery of the rebar, Ceco Corporation provided the Cook Plant with 6 sections of rebar a-0 long from each heat of steel along with the CMTRs to allow Cook to perform Independent tests for tensile strength, yield strength, and elongation. The Cook Plant performed these tests on two of the specimens for each heat of steel per ASTM A615-68.

This was done prior to the rebar being bent.

The test results were satisfactory. The Ceco Corporation then fabricated the rebar to the sizes and configurations given on the detail drawings.

I&M retained the reinforcing steel detailing contractor, United Detailers, Inc.

From the I&M supplied engineering drawing, the detaitler prepared a reinforcing steel placement drawing. On this placement drawing, each individual rebar has an associated mark number. This allows each rebar to be Identified as to Its size and as to whether it Is a straight bar or whether it exists in a detailed bent bar configuration. The placement drawing also shows where each individual rebar Is located In the missile shields.

Ur I F Ceco Corporation delivered the reinforcing steel to the Cook Plant. Each piece of reinforcing steel was delivered having two tags attached. One color tag specified which area of the plant in which the piece of rebar is to be used.

A metal second tag designates the mark number of the rebar piece as it is called out on either the straight or bent rebar list.

I&M provided the reinforcing steel placement drawing prepared by United Detailers, Inc. and the applicable rebar procurement specification to the reinforcing steel fabricator, The Ceco Corporation. The procurement specification, DCC-CE-1 07-0CS, required Ceco to perform mill tests per ASTM A615-68 for each heat of steel. Ceco was also required to provide l&M six (6) test specimens from each heat of steel. The Ceco Corporation fabricated all of the reinforcing steel for the missile shields.

The carpenters built the formwork for each of the missile shields. The iron workers placed and secured the reinforcing steel within the formwork per the placement drawing prepared by United Detailers, Inc.

C,3 C:0 C.,

I[p1 ci) 4.)

4.

c C

cI fi 15 I

C.

o)

CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS FOR THE UNIT 1 & 2 MISSILE SHIELDS

UNIT NO. 1 REACTOR MISSILE SHIELDS HEAT NO. C34105 Test Data for Heat No. C34105 Steel Manufacturer's CMTR data:

Yield Point = 53,205 psi Tensile Strength = 89,423 psi I&M Site Bar Test Report:

Test No. 1 Yield Point = 50,897 psi Tensile Strength = 84,679 psi Test No. 2 Yield Point = 52,115 psi Tensile strength = 84,743 psi Drawing Nos. DC-I 10152 and DC-123206 Reinforcing Steel Included in Heat No. C34105 Rebar Size No. of Rebars Rebar Mark Rebar Function Double 180 degree hook

1. 11 57 1lB10 bar, top and bottom, resisting bending stresses Double 180 degree hook

1. 11 12 11BIl bar, top, resisting bending tresses Double 180 degree hook

1. 11 32 11B1 bar, top and bottom, resisting bending stresses Double 180 degree hook

1. 118 1 1B2 bar, top, resisting bending

_______________________stresses Double 180 degree hook

1. 11 2

11B21 bar, top, resisting bending

_ _ _stresses Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 I

91

UNIT NO. 1 REACTOR MISSILE SHIELDS HEAT NO. B37160 Test Data for Heat No. B37160 Steel Manufacturer's CMTR data:

Yield Point = 54,487 psi Tensile Strength = 83,333 psi I&M Site Bar Test Report:

Test No. 1 Yield Point = 51,025 psi Tensile Strength = 85,320 psi Test No. 2 Yield Point = 50,833 psi Tensile strength = 82,948 psi Drawing Nos. DC-1 10152 and DC-123207 Reinforcing Steel Included in Heat No. B37160 Rebar Size No. of Rebars

• Rebar Mark*

Rebar Function Straight Bar, Top and bottom bars,

1. 11 64 28'-3" Long resisting bending stresses Straight Bar, Top bars, resisting bending

1. 11 16 26'-6" Long stresses Straight Bar, Top bars, resisting bending

1. 11 4

7'-6" Long stresses Straight Bar, Top and bottom bars,

1. 11 41 24'-0" Long resisting bending stresses Straight Bar, Top bars, resisting bending

1. 11 8

22'-3" Long stresses

• Rebar mark numbers are not assigned to straight bars.

Calc No.: SD-040303001, Rev. 0 Attachment -_2_

Page 2 of

UNIT NO. 1 REACTOR MISSILE SHIELDS HEAT NO. C35157 Test Data for Heat No. C35157 Steel Manufacturer's CMTR data:

Yield Point = 57,468 psi Tensile Strength= 85,316 psi I&M Site Bar Test Report:

Test No. 1 Yield Point = 51,265 psi Tensile Strength = 81,645 psi Test No. 2 Yield Point = 50,759 psi Tensile strength = 82,278 psi Drawing Nos. DC-1 10152 and DC-123207 Reinforcing Steel Included in Heat No. C35157 Rebar Size No. of Rebars Rebar Mark*

Rebar Function Straight Bar, Side face bars resisting

1. 8 13 28'-3" Long torsional shear and shrinkage & temperature stresses Straight Bar, Side face bars resisting

1. 8 12 24'-O" Long torsional shear and shrinkage & temperature stresses

• Rebar mark numbers are not assigned to straight bars.

Calc No.: SD.040303-001, Rev. 0 Page _ of ?

UNIT NO. 2 REACTOR MISSILE SHIELDS HEAT NO. B37340 Test Data for Heat No. B37340 Steel Manufacturer's CMTR data:

Yield Point = 51,602 psi Tensile Strength = 83,012 psi I&M Site Bar Test Report:

Test No. 1 Yield Point = 52,179 psi Tensile Strength = 87,948 psi Test No. 2 Yield Point = 49,487 psi Tensile strength = 80,256 psi Drawing Nos. DC-1 10153, DC-123203, and DC-123204 Reinforcing Steel Included in Heat No. B37340 Rebar Size No. of Rebars Rebar Mark*

Rebar Function Double 180 degree hook

1. 11 57 11BIO bar, top and bottom, resisting bending stresses Straight Bar, Top and bottom bars,

1. 11 64 28'-3" Long resisting bending stresses

• Rebar mark numbers are -not assigned to straight bars.

Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment _2_

Pqne Aq of gr

UNIT NO. 2 REACTOR MISSILE SHIELDS HEAT NO. A37151 Test Data for Heat No. A37151 Steel Manufacturer's CMTR data:

Yield Point = 50,641 psi Tensile Strength = 84,615 psi I&M Site Bar Test Report:

Test No. 1 Yield Point = 50,448 psi Tensile Strength = 80,961 psi Test No. 2 Yield Point = 50,192 psi Tensile strength= 81,282 psi Drawing Nos. DC-1 10153, DC-123203, and DC-123204 Reinforcing Steel Included in Heat No. A37151 Rebar Size

• No. of Rebars Rebar Mark*

Rebar Function Double 180 degree hook

1. 11 12 lBl 11 bar, top, resisting bending stresses Straight Bar, Top bars, resisting bending

1. 11 16 26'-6" Long stresses

• Rebar mark numbers are not assigned to straight bars.

Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 _

Page s of

UNIT NO. 2 REACTOR MISSILE SHIELDS HEAT NO. A36334 Test Data for Heat No. A36334 Steel Manufacturer's CMTR data:

Yield Point = 55,769 psi Tensile Strength = 85,576 psi I&M Site Bar Test Report:

Test No. 1 Yield Point = 50,384 psi Tensile Strength = 82,307 psi Test No. 2 Yield Point = 49,935 psi Tensile strength = 83,589 psi Drawing Nos. DC-1 10153, DC-123203, and DC-123204 Reinforcing Steel Included in Heat No. A36334 Rebar Size No. of Rebars Rebar Mark*

Rebar Function Double 180 degree hook

1. 11 32 llBi bar, top, resisting bending

___stresses Straight Bars, Side face bars resisting

1. 11 41 24'-0" Long torsional shear and shrinkage & temperature stresses

• Rebar mark numbers are not assigned to straight bars.

Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Page 6t of _

UNIT NO. 2 REACTOR MISSILE SHIELDS HEAT NO. B36171 Test Data for Heat No. B36171 Steel Manufacturer's CMTR data:

Yield Point = 54,487 psi Tensile Strength = 89,423 psi I&M Site Bar Test Report:

Test No. 1 Yield Point = 52,115 psi Tensile Strength = 88,717 psi Test No. 2 Yield Point = 52,692 psi Tensile strength = 91,730 psi Drawing Nos. DC-1 10153, DC-123203, and DC-123204 Reinforcing Steel Included in Heat No. B36171 Rebar Size No. of Rebars Rebar Mark*

Rebar Function Double 180 degree hook

1. 11 8

11B2 bar, top, resisting bending stresses Double 180 degree hook

1. 11 2

1IB21 bar, top, resisting bending stresses Straight Bar, Top bars, resisting bending

1. 11 4

7'-6" long stresses Straight Bar, Top bars, resisting bending

1. 11 8

22'-3" Long stresses

.1.

.1.

• Rebar mark numbers are not assigned to straight bars.

Ca:, No.: SD-040303-001. Ren. 0 At'Uchment 2 Pa.il. '7 nf

7

UNIT NO. 2 REACTOR MISSILE SHIELDS HEAT NO. C35157 Test Data for Heat No. C35157 Steel Manufacturer's CMTR data:

Yield Point = 57,468 psi Tensile Strength = 85,316 psi I&M Site Bar Test Report:

Test No. 1 Yield Point = 51,265 psi Tensile Strength= 81,645 psi Test No. 2 Yield Point = 50,759 psi Tensile strength = 82,278 psi Drawing Nos. DC-1 10153 and DC-123204 Reinforcing Steel Included in Heat No. C35157 1

Rebar Size No. of Rebars Rebar Mark*

Rebar Function Straight Bar, Side face bars resisting

1. 8 13 28'-3" Long torsional shear and shrinkage & temperature stresses Straight Bar, Side face bars resisting

1. 8 12 24'-0" Long torsional shear and shrinkage & temperature stresses

• Rebar mark numbers are not assigned to straight bars.

Cal: No.: SD-040303-O1, Rev. 0 Attachmrent 2 Page of 2

Reinforcing Steel Placement Drawings 1.) Drawing No. DC-1 10152, "Unit 1 Containment Bldg. Missile Shield, Rebar placement drawing" 2.) Drawing No. DC-123205, "Unit 1 Containment Bldg. Missile Shield, Standard rebar bending details" 3.) Drawing No. DC-123206, "Unit 1 Containment Bldg. Missile Shield, Bent rebar list" 4.) Drawing No. DC-123207, "Unit 1 Containment Bldg. Missile Shield, Straight rebar list" 5.) Drawing No. DC-110153, "Unit 2 Containment Bldg. Missile Shield, Rebar placement drawing" 6.) Drawing No. DC-123202, "Unit 2 Containment Bldg. Missile Shield, Standard rebar bending details" 7.) Drawing No. DC-123203,"Unit 2 Containment Bldg. Missile Shield, Bent rebar list" 8.) Drawing No. DC-123204, "Unit 1 Containment Bldg. Missile Shield, Straight rebar list" Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Page of C/

. - _
-.- :- -

I THIS PAGE-IS AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR FIGURE THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT.

THE RECORD TITLED:

"UNIT NO. 1 CONTAINMENT BLDG MISSILE SHIELD" DRAWING NO. lC93 WITHIN THIS PACKAGE.....

D-OL

-F

.X

.sIt, 4.:

aOt>t4.s,~_

' X t

..I t A

.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~

9aZt-'ts;'t4

,_t 9,3

<,>.S se

':-t'.ri'-.Jt:)<i-l a5 Ci

.g. j lzse r~~

ow

.;w44

L

-.

Lall P,-;;Z;75PV;x

.fi
.

 ;.

I

_ ;Ca- )4. J¢;t't :tZ"Xs 4; ~

.*. I S

>< gZ '

iL

.r*

\\I _

77s

.'.P. I I-

.1 ilp,

-;

I fav 2 VI t 7 Cz I

,,a S

7_7; r? ik e-,r Crfr,,Ql-CDPP.

1"t

'I

> v *.T O

, r4:

.ZF 7

31 1-0 ft F

i'

/7 t~~~-

-I! Ss, vf:

_r1-W M

i!

i i

II i

t U

fi>

45X ln i i '~~.

,A 01#

nm C

+,i[f

.E, 7~

uj

[

r

/_

F R

})S 1-<

'~'

+'

[-'

4; -

.. OLD - I.

Ei L

L

,sn'

= A~

zi~c__

S i.,-

IT"-

F A

0->047 Calc No.: SO-64~33.3a01, Rev. 0'

+/-

LAr chr-en

'~

~ 1ai ~

~

2~- ~¶CC- ~ ~

~

~

_of

Cciz No.

SD-040303-OO1, Rev. n s Atachmint 3 c' Page

Ž -of 7

THIS PAGE IS-AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR FIGURE THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RECORD TITLED:

"UNIT NO. 2 CONTAINMENT BLDG, MISSILE SHIELD" DRAWING NO. 2C93 WITHIN THIS PACIKAGE.....

D-02

_:C-A

T B A' r E

L A I; c

T.

IC Ai; L BT 6E~

l<C

-1f F.

I

. PXET, 9_

-AL PsM i'

oJ-

• AC Fu.

-O cuT.

.b71j~SIo3S OMrrELi AgE 7LEJZO

'L'o co gLLUES.*

L 5 ",r<

4qsl

<Y \\p £ 'Aa B.C y -;..

L; t4 1 T 'E O D -

T'A I L C M -'

I I-C-,

'I IS 6

)4 o r; T w iz 7 o" A a S - r,.- _ {, -,

L L I : A S E I H s,

o

-r,-se

...,..Z VsIw'LO4

• QrAjuWWS9

.9a J1 h40,asa

• MCAi J'zAM j--C C~.'h,¢,

C ic

.C_ coo.

0 A 0

.I, P

t

o C5.cT S.36

1-11-m 1 G9 v ts.;.-~

52 5 a-E. XT s:

CECO coop.

T-7-7z

-1 7

- 4rLE~ 3N,.c0 0.

t 0

C, Cen 5

m 0

0 o

E U

C.)

cl

.___J t.'

I i

I I11

=,'Z.. OX - A I.

p I M F. iW S I *C F! i

,5 c E C W ;,

-'r,

2CC

4..1 T H R J 3 f

I W c L.

A "I I.

C, CJ 1,

- 14 4r~t &. 1.,4 la O- -

A l' *

- A 5

3 1C Ya

. 4 a 7 j I.q.

., E j

_.... ~

1/-\\

mb 3I r )

• 1 Z?.

J e..

_0.

11.) o.I Is I-<\\:1I c~o

'.M

L zom IL 8L 0::.

tr Cfi

°-

1; g

1 rN..

X, A

.:9?;)X 4.1 XJ

~

I.cA c

wM.~A

,.S',

A c

c.

4..

C C

t 1 --

~,

-C, 14 e

C r-

. -Jl.1 4

r W.,

D\\

11-7

.4 A

-

H.:



17.

-*1--

_____i_______d.--

oS~t,5 #21 M:

ri as 2..

I..ij'y k/j..

7i I'

S 6 2y --:l--I..'.'50'

.. -` --,.. T'..

t

'2r I -

"-

i

- 11.1 -

I.

C?

I

:

i I

i

.1 I

. : I -

M V

z~b Cal

':EFEG-,,

b AI R4A~ Dj, E, AT E-

-7 L 9

PT-bW;..K>~c>

S

. A I L s'.r 's wc S5 T *ItA J C 44 r-1 A RZ 5-LO

i.

• • 7-1 A 5 GS.

T H N. °J

=e

.0 7.

• l L

T "S-

.Z.

A,,r lz

• r C CZ T E w

.o.

SO*25,

.C 0 T215 5~~~,E

..VIA.W.

f.

4. -'Z~3 H

LA k

0

'i ;'.% EF

9.

4 *sO T.-k

, L Si w c; Tr ir

. S I'L6 E

-LE

£J 4 r u1.

G4 Zs g

-~

Ca. No

3.

_D0003 1 Rev.

.ag of,

E-, 5 1T27 Li ].S 9';

'. I _- q 4.2

.W A

.4

,,S

" -.,,'2.

.i 1oM3 0x Eto L rz1

~ rT; -' l'- "

1 A.' S-...

'tw -VLV-n k

SUBSTITUTE ATTACHMENT 4 CALCULATION SD-040303-001, REVISION 0 (Replaces a 17 page copyrighted article)

Civil Engineering Database Variability of Mechanical Properties of Reinforcing Bars by Sher Ali Mirza, (Professional Research Assoc., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ.

of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada) and James G. MacGregor, Fellow, ASCE, (Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Austin, Tex.; on leave as Prof. of Civ. Engrg., University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada)

Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 105, No. 5, May 1979, pp. 921-937 Document Journal Paper type:

Errata:

ST May 1980, pg. 1232 Abstract:

The results of approximately 4000 published and unpublished tensile tests on deformed reinforcing bars are studied to obtain statistical relationships for various mechanical properties. The sample included No.3 through No.18, Grades 40 and 60, bars.

The means and coefficients of variation of the mill test yield strengths were found to be 48.8 ksi (337 MN/m2) and 10.7% for Grade 40 and 71 ksi (MN/m 2) and 9.3% for Grade 60 bars. Beta distributions were used to represent both of these sets of data.

The static yield strength was found to be 3.5 ksi (24 MN/rM2))

lower on the average than the mill test yield strength in both cases, with a coefficient of variation of 13.4%. The trend to lower yield strengths with increased bar sizes observed early in the 1970's was not present in more recent test data, apparently due to more stringent production control in recent years.

CONFIGURATION DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT CD1 Number: CDI-

- K/A Page 1 of 5 INITIATION Description of Change Activity:

(Describe the reason for the changes. Identify a primary change driver, and include a brief description of the activity.)

The primary change driver is calculation SD.040303-001 (Reactor Missile Blocks Reinforcing Steel Yield Strength). Rev. 0 This calculation determines an appropriate yield strength from rebar CMTR and rebar site acceptance test data, for use in the structural calculation for the control rod drive missile shields (SD-010377-001).

Condition Report 03085024 documents that the NRC (letter dated March 23, 2003) did not accept use of actual rebar yield strength in the structural calculation (SD-010307*O01) for the Control Rod Drive Missile Shield. I&M subsequently submitted a LAR (letter dated November

12. 2003. AEP:NRC:3520-01) to request the use of yield strength from measured material properties, based on CMTR (mill test) dama. I&M subsequently withdrew this LAR, via letter dated March 2,2003.AEP:NRC:, citing the existence of additional supporting data (t&M rebar site acceptance test data). Calculation SD-040303-001 uses both CMTR and site acceptance test data to determine an appropriate yield strength value for use in the missile shields and will support a new license amendment request based on consideration of both sets of rebar test data.

CDI Number: CDI - YYYY-NNNNN Rev NN.I a N/A - CDI is to be issued closed and attached to a controlled or record document.

Paul G. Schoepf Preparer:

SJ/7°

/

/

/4/

Print Name Sienature h

e Date Closeout Paul W. Leonard Reviewer:

a

/

_/

Qaification

///

/

50.59 (I CDI PSG Print Name signature CLOSEOUT All requirements of the implementation plan have been met, and all impacted documents have either been updated or reference to an appropriate tracking mechanism has been noted. This CDI may be closed out.

Closeout Paul W. Leonard t

Reviewer:

.b e

l 3g<

Print Name ul e

Signaturls Mate PART oI-Functional Area (FA) Impacts Check I and/or 2 as applicable:

1. El Impacts and interfaces are sufficiently addressed and documented in the associated change driver procedure and are not documented here - see Part 2 for Document Impacts.

2. 1El The following Functional Areas were assessed, and the results are documented below.

Desirn Enrineerint!

Plant Engineerinz 0 Fuel. Safety and Analysis DMaintenance El Config Mgmit El Production and Reactor Eng D Testing o Mod Admin E Programs E Regulatory Affairs E Rad/ChemfEnv a l&C 0 System l Information Technology 0 Material Management o Electrical Site Protection El Training 0 Other (See Below) o Mechanical E Fire Protection 0 Operations 0 Structural Dl Security 0 Performance Assurance 0 E-Plan FA Assessed By Impacts Comments Structural s Preparer Yes Calculation SD-010307-001 for the structural qualification U FA a No of the CRDM missile blocks will require revision, following (Name)

NRC issuance of a Safety Evaluation Report, to incorporate the use of measured rebar material properties into the calculation. Specification ES-CIVIL-0432 (containment design criteria) also requires revision. See below for further discussion and tracking vehicles. There are no other specific impacts for the structural area.

This form is derived from information found in PMP-5043-CDI-001. It or a similar form may be used provided the content is consistent with the requirements of that procedure.

Calculation SD-040303-001 Rev. 0, Page 1 of 5

CONFIGURATION DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT CDI Number: CDI -

Pace 2 of 5 PART 2 - Document Impacts Review configuration documents to determine impacts from the activity being performed. NOTE: All impacts must be found acceptable and either updated concurrently with the impacting activity execution or a tracking mechanism initiated to ensure later update.

List Specific Documents/Programs Reviewed/Impacted Imp acted Document Update Refer to Figure 2 of PMP-5043-CCD-OO for list of configuration documents.

Indicate: FA Conc Date Identify specific sections impacted.

Owner to urren Complete Notify OR via t

or Check it Document Upda Tracking Pending Distribution te?

Number rev la. Drawings EN/A r _

None reviewed.

El

_ O lb. Vendor Manuals S N/A v

e None reviewed.

2. Databases EN/A ;;.

None reviewed.

_El l

E l

3. Software 3

N/A

/

A___

None reviewed.

EF 4a. Procedures 3

N/A A,

t None reviewed.

_E l

E 4b. Programs (See Department Websites to help I

N/A t

N&

rike';

identify program owners)

G jj None reviewed.

4c. Calculations a

N/A H

G il SD-010307-001 Via Document El 03085024-2 E Distributio 4d. Design Standards Z N/A

-. 40

_,__a___

s

=.

None reviewed.

m E

El 4e. Emergency Plan Info 3

N/A tY-_____

None reviewed.

WE L

E l

-4f. Specifications ONIA

?>;U>!~^t

>^.s ggs ES-CIVIL-0432-QCN Via Dcument l

03085024-2 Distribution_

This form is derived from information found in PMP-5043-CDI-001. It or a similar form may be used provided the content is consistent with the requirements of that procedure.

Calculation SD-040303-001 Rev. 0. Page 2 of 5

CONFIGURATION DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Part 3 - For 4g: Identify all electronic files searched, the search parameters used, and discuss the results.

This form is derived from information found in PMP-5043-CDI-001. It or a similar form may be used provided the content is consistent with the requirements of that procedure.

Calculation SD-040303-401 Rev. 0. Page 3 of 5

CONFIGURATION DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT CDI Number: CDI -

Page 4 of 5 Operating License and Technical Specifications were reviewed (Unit 1 Rev. 64, Amendment 280 and Unit 2 Rev. 68, Amendment 264 in Documentum) using key words "rebar", "reinforcing", "reinforcement", "yield strength", "ACI" and "concrete".

There were no hits on "rebar", "reinforcing", "reinforcement" or "yield strength". Hits on "ACI" had nothing to do with concrete and rebar, and hits on "concrete" had no implications for rebar yield strength.

UFSAR was searched using keywords words "rebar", "reinforcing", "reinforcement", "yield strength", "ACI" and "concrete" UFSAR Table 5.2-8 (Containment Internal Structures Element Design Pressures) shows a design pressure capability for the missile shield of 53.9 psi based on the 2001 reanalysis (which used measured material properties of 50.6 ksi for rebar strength). This value will change depending on the final rebar strength determined from calculation SD-0403030-001 and its impact on structural calculation SD-010307-001.

UFSAR Section 5.2.2.5 discusses Structural Materials for the containment, and notes that reinforcement steel has a minimum strength of 40,000 psi. This section also notes that stresses in rebar was generally kept to grade 40 values. This statement is literally not impacted, however, it should be clarified (once NRC approval is obtained) to note that stresses above 40,000 psi are only allowed for the missile shields, based on the SER received. Section 5.2.2.3 discusses use of capacity reduction or "phi" (0 )factors, which reduce capacity to account for small adverse variations in materiail strengths (e.g., 4 = 0.90 for flexure). The use of phi factors in structural calculations is not impacted.

Searched SERs for "rebar" and "reinforcement". SER N69031 (1/14/69) includes the text, ""no steel reinforcement will experience average strains beyond the yield point at the factored load." This statement suggests that the response of the containment structure, even under the load combination involving the Design Basis Earthquake, will remain elastic and below the yield level." The calculation SD-040303-001 will define a yield strength based on test data and the related LAR will request NRC approval for the use of measured material properties in structural calculations for the missile shield. There is no intent to have rebar experience strain beyond yield point. Approval to use measured (vice specified) yield point will be solicited and obtained from the NRC. Therefore, this statement is not impacted.

SER N85078 (2125/85) regarding Containment Ultimate Capacity includes the text, "The D. C. Cook containment ultimate capacity was initially evaluated by staffs consultant, Gunnar Harsted. The evaluation was based on the code specified design strengths for concrete, reinforcing steel, liner steel and structural steel, and on simple hand calculation. On the basis of this evaluation it was identified that the containment capacity is limited by the strength of the equipment hatch closure plate and equipment hatch door, and the limiting internal pressure is 235 psig. An independent evaluation was made by Structural Mechanics Associates (SMA), the D. C. Cook licensee's consultant, and is contained in the two referenced reports. The SMA analyses were based on the 'as built" strengths as well as the code specified values and more detailed computer analyses were employed. The "as built" strengths consisted of the lowest sample value and the mean sample value of the materials. Containment internal pressures corresponding to the code specified and "as built" values were calculated for different limiting sections of the containment. In order to measure the anticipated degree of dispersion in the calculated results, a probabilistic description of the ultimate internal pressure capacity of the containment was developed. The evaluation identified four limiting modes of failure. They are shear failure in base mat, membrane hoop tension failure of containment cylinder, bending failure of equipment hatch, and bending failure of personnel hatch."

This SER acknowledged the use of "as-built" strength for determination of containment ultimate capacity, and based on its results, the missile blocks were not limiting components. Since NRC approval is being sought to use "as-built" rebar strength, and the noted SER already acknowledges the use of as-built material properties, this SER is not impacted.

This form is derived from information found in PMP-5043-CDI-001. It or a similar form may be used provided the content is consistent with the requirements of that procedure.

Calculation SD-040303-001 Rev. 0. Page 4 of 5

CONFIGURATION DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT CD1 Number: CDI -

Page 5 of 5 CMS was searched usiug key words "rebar", "reinforcing", "reinforcement" and "yield strength". Five commitments of some relevance were identified.

8161 - This commitment described that I&M will revise the ice condenser endwall calculation (SD-010307-003) with respect to required rebar yield strength. This commitment was closed (calculation revised and no longer relies on as-built rebar yield strength). This commitment is closed.

4530 -This commitment discusses containment analysis related to hydrogen burn, and discussed consideration of rebar yielding. There is no specific discussion of rebar yield strength. This commitment is closed/outdated.

4386 and 4566 -These early commitments were for I&M to supply mill test reports of materials and design details used for the containment liner and reinforcing bars to Dr. Harstead (Containment Ultimate Capacity analysis).

These commitments are closed/outdated.

8202 - This commitment (4/23/03) was for I&M to submit a LAR for use of missile shield reinforcing bar strength based on material test data. This commitment was closed based on AEP submitting a LAR on 1 1/12/03. This commitment needs to be reopened based on I&M's withdrawal of the LAR, or a new commitment generated.

8280 - This commitment is for I&M to submit a revised LAR to resolve the missile shield reinforcing bar yield strength issue. This calculation supports this commitment.

Final consideration of impacts based on what NRA does regarding commitment 8202. Others are not impacted.

The Environmental Protection Plan and Security Plan were not reviewed. These plans would not contain any discussion of rebar strength values used in structural calculations.

Constraints and Implementation Plan: (describe sequence of events for document changes and any restrictions or milestones that apply)

Calculation SD-0403030-001 is being developed to determine an appropriate rebar yield strength value based on measured material properties, for use in the structural calculation for the missile shields (SD-010307-001). The value determined in calculation SD-040303-001 will be the basis for a License Amendment Request (LAR) to request NRC approval to use this value. This LAR is scheduled to be submitted to the NRC by 4120/04.

Following receipt of an SER from the NRC, the structural calculation SD-010307-001 will be revised to incorporate the yield strength value. The UFSAR will also be changed to note that measured rebar strength properties are used for the missile shield only, and the resulting capacity of the missile shield will be added to UFSAR Table 5.2-8. Finally, specification ES-CIVIL-0432-QCN will also be changed to note that measured rebar strength properties are used for the missile shield only.

In the event the NRC elects NOT to issue an SER allowing the use of measured material properties, an alternate resolution path will be developed. This may include alternate submittal to allow use of a reduced load factor on pressure, or to re-pour new missile blocks.

This form is derived from information found in PMP-5043-CDI-001. It or a similar form may be used provided the content is consistent with the requirements of that procedure.

Calculation SD-040303-001 Rev. 0, Page 5 of 5

AEP DESIGN INFORMATION TRANSMITTAL (DIT)

DIT Form, Part 1 Originating Organization E SAFETY-RELATED E AEP DIT No DIT-B-02851-O0 NON-SAr.-ETY-RELATED O Other (specify)

D.C. Cook Unit (Circle applicable): BOTH Page 1 of 31 System CNTMT To Paul G. Schoep!

Designation

Subject:

Summary of Tensile Testing Results for Rebars Used in Control Rod Drive Missile Shields for Units 1 and 2 Satyananda Staff Engineer Vl Chakrabarti

__ /

Preparer Position Pre s Signature Date Il Paul W. Leonard Principal Nuclear Specialist 2 2 3 05 tgnaur Reviewer Position D te Paul G. Schoepf

Manager, StructJMech. Design A14d gInky Approver Position Approvers Signature U Date Status of Information:.

Approved for Use D Unverified Method and Schedule of Verification for Unverified DITs N/A.

CR#

Holds Associated with Unverified DITs:

W/A.

Description of Information The information contained In this DIT collates the relevant rebar test data and backup documents. For details, see Part 2 of this document.

Purpose of Issuance (Inciucing any Precautions or Umltations):To support license amendment request to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the use of CMTR data in the analyses of the Control Rod Drive Missile Shields In the Containment.

Source of Information:

The material bar strengths are taken from Concrete-Reinforcement Bar Test Reports prepared at the time of initial construction. The copies of test data are attached.

Engineering Judgement Used?

CD Yes 0I No J4cf I Controlled Reference/ Document No.:

1. Calc SD-010307-OO1,CS-O1 (Approved)

2. NTS-2002-021-REP. Rev.0 (Approved)

3. DIT-B.01954-OO (Approved)

4. UFSAR Ch. 5, Rev. 18.1 (Approved)

Uncontrolled Reference / Document No.:

Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Distribution: Copy to Requestor P.G. Schoepf Copy to DIT Administrator File Original to NDM (Transmitted by DIT Administrator) page..

of Z? /

This fonr Is derived from the Information In 12-EHP-5040-DES-001. Rev. 3, Contci of Design Input. Data Sheet 3. AEP Design Information Transmittals (DiT) - DOT Form

AEP DESIGN INFORMATION TRANSMITTAL (DIT)

DIT Form, Part 2 Design Information Transmittal I

DIT No. DIT-B-02851 -00 Page 2 of 31 Description of Information(Continued):

The Collation of material test data is presented in Table 1 below and contains the following information:

1.

Unit No.

2.

Heat No.

CalcNo.: SD040303001,Rev.0

3.

Bar Size a

R

4. Yield Point from Manufacturer Test, psi Attachment 6v

5. Tensile Strength from Manufacturer Test, psi

6. Yield Point from l&M Site Bar Test Report, psi Page 2 of

7. Tensile Strength from I&M Site Bar Test Report, psi

8. Ref ce Therani1sis for the Control Rod Drive Missile Shields Is contained In Calculation no. SD-01 0307-0l,,CS-01 (Reference 1). Copies of backup documentation for Items 1 through 5 are Included in Report No. NS.2002-021 -REP (References 2 and 3). Copies of backup documentation for Items 6 and 7 are attached herewith with references to the attachment numbers. Note that the data contained under Items 4 and 5 are generally designated as Certified Mill Test Report (CMTR) data.

Also note that the Method of Inspection of Testing of rebars used at the time of construction was as follows (reference 4):

Certified reports of chemical and physical test performed on the reinforcing steel were submitted to the Engineer by the supplier. These tests conform to the requirements.of 'Standard Specification for Deformed Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement ASTM Designation A615-68.

In order to assure that reinforcing steel met appropriate specifications, samples of rebar delivered to theJob site were selected and tested to confirm compliance with the specified physical requirements and for certification of mill test reports.

The selection of the specimens was as follows:

Two specimens were taken for each heat of material. No samples selected included tie end 12 Inches of any bar delivered.

Prior to fabrication and/or delivery of the reinforcing to the job site, specimens were tested for ultimate strength, yield strength and elongation by Indiana & Michigan Electric Company. If any of these specimens failed to meet the requirements of the applicable specification for ultimate strength, yield strength or elongation, the heat of steel was resampled, this time selecting four specimens instead of two as were required originally. If any of these specimens failed to meet the requirements of the applicable specification for ultimate strength, yield strength or elongation, the entire heat was rejected.

All reinforcing was kept separated by size and heat and tagged with the manufacturers Identification number. This Identification was maintained at least until the heat of steel met the aforementioned requirements.

To Insure that only the specified reinforcing steel was received, the mill test reports for each shipment were checked against the mill test reports sent to thelob site with the test specimens.'

This form Is derfred from Me Indornation In 12-E-P-5040-DES-001. Rev. 3. Control d Design IrputL Data Sheet 3. AEP Design Infornnaion Tranamluas (Drr) -DrT Form

AEP DESIGN INFORMATION TRANSMITTAL (DIT)

DI Form, Part 2

Design Information Transmittal DIT No. DIT-B-02851 -00 Page 3 of 31 At the time of construction, only the tensile capacities obtained from testing were tabulated. In preparing Table 1, the bar test data Is presented in terms of stress for a direct comparison of CMTR data with the tensile stress data. These'stresses are calculated by dividing the tabulated capacities by their corresponding standard bar areas.

Also, note that in Attachment 2 and In DIT-B-01954-00 duplication of numbers for heat number A36448 exists. The CMTR yield and tensile stresses available from Attachment 2 data are slightly higher than that of the material test data provided with DIT-B-01954-00. In reviewing the two sets of data noting that specific corrections were made to the material sheets attached to DIT-B-01954-00, and that the material sheets clearly designate the steel to be part of the missile shield, the lower of the two values are selected by engineering judgment and tabulated below.

Table 1 Summary of Tensile Testing for Rebar Used in Control Rod Drive Missile Shields Unit 1 Test Data Heat No.

Bar Yield Point Tensile Yield Point Tensile Strength Attach.

Size from Strength from from l&M from l&M Site No.

Manufacturer Manufacturer Site Bar Test Bar Test Test, psi Test, psi Report, psi Report, psi C34105

1. 11 53,205 89,423 50.697 84.679 1

__52,11__5 84,743 B37160

1. 11 54,487 83,333 51,025.

85,320 1

50.833 82,948 C35157

1. 8 57,468 85,316 51,265 81,645 2

50,759 82,278 A36448

1. 5 54,193 79,677 53,225 75,483 2

I 55,483 I78,709 Lowest Yield 53,205 50,759 Strength Value for Unit 1, psi UnIt2TestData Heat No.

Bar Yield Point Tensile Yield Point Tensile Strength Attach.

Size from Strength from from l&M from I&M Site No.

Manufacturer Manufacturer Site Bar Test Bar Test Test, psi Test, psi Report, psi Report, psi B36171

1. 11 54,487 89,423 52,115 88,717 1

52,692 91,730 A37151

1. 11 50,641 84,615 50,448 80,961 3

50,1i 92 81,282 B37340

1. 11 51,602 83,012 52,179 87,948 1

49,487 80,256 A36334

1. 11 55,769 85,576 50,384 82,307 4

49,935 83,589 C35157

1. 8 57,468 85,316 51,265 81,645 2

50,759 82,278 C34982

1. 5 57,741 79,354 52,580 76,129 2

55.806 78,064 Lowest Yield 50,641 49,487 Strength Value for Unit 2. Psi Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment 4t Page :5 of L Thistorm is defived Iorn the Informadon k 12-EHP-4O-DES-OO1. Rev.3,Conroh L.-- _....

Trnsmit'.s (Orr) - Orr Fonn

II I

I

• oa ac-t c

i

'CTRIC COMPANY '

LEAR PLANT

..,C..

tL,,,

,Bruce

-r,4, r--- I= )

INDIANA & MICHIGAN ELE DONALD C. COOK NWt CONCRETE-REINFORCEMENT BAR TEST REPORT.

• S I.

a 5.

.5 Name of Supplier 61 P.O. or Contract No.

4fea 5;-eC-4 60 -e lA Report No.

A7M Designrat/n j94 Date _________at NHEAT TEST BAR LlP

-REMARKS NUMBER No.

SIZE*

IPS T

~

REJCRMRS

_36_77/___

4'

/

7/

-3 13 21 3

S iSS.Z 2

Vg,/

J9.

Z

/wss

s9q, el 7

\\

9.

&w r SS j

,\\

LT

_..a.

g

/

795

• 2./

el ASs

,,LL.

• 8 S j~d,3zs*13 S2t ASTM A615 GR 40, Y-40 KSI, T-70 KSI Re'marks 042,,j -6 bz f

8 SPEC

• SPEC MIN. ELONG.

BAR AREA YIELD TENSILE GAGE LENGTH SIZE SQ. IN.

KIPS KiPs IN. (0) 3 0.11 4.4 7.7

-8.86 4

0.20 8.0 14.0 8.95 5

0.31 12.4 21.7 8.95 6

0.44

.17.6 30.8 8.95 7

0.60 24.0 42.0 8.86 8

0.79 31;6 55.3 8.80 9

1.00

.40.0 70.0 8.72

10.

1.27 50.8 88.9 8.64 1 1 1.56 62.4 109.2 8.55

• 14 2.25 90.0 157.5 8.55

.18 4.00 160.0 280 8.55 C3'c No.: SD4J40.30V001, Rev. 0

• Att.::hment Pa tv I/ of 2,'

Date Samples Were Received 51z/I Z Tested By

.a Approved B r 2XDa Al e

• Copies To:

DIT-B-02851-00 Page4of31 Attachment I Note (1) STD Goge Length 8.00'

t-tO~t 1 *.'.

-INIAA lCA1GAN.:EiECTRlC COMPANY REY: tO0 DNL C

OK NUCLEAR PLANT

• .CONCRETE-R-EINFORCEM-ENT BAR TEST. REPORT Hoxme of Supplier Cif-eo gt CaA?

Report.No:_

0C- $L,.

.`

E:_

P G...;;

P.O. or Contract No.

A "SJM.Deii

'natiyon a-/-SzMSSDte X//2 YIE3/

i Si

-E-.L*.

HEAT4 TES SA.

.OZ7' Tr *

.P

, Oyr</7-G REARSS,=.......-.

NUBE SIZ RE*o

=

.Jl 2~

7-3 El=

o~

~~

~/v fell*

s*e.

ASTM -A61 5 iGR 40, Y-40 KSI, T-70 KS1 BA RA SPEC

-SPEC MIN. ELONG.

SZ£ Q. N.

YIELD tENSILE GAG IEN.G()H 3

01.

4.4 7.7 8.86 4

0.20.

8.0:

.14.0 8.95 0.31

.12.4 21.7.

8.95

.6 0.44 17.6 30.8

'8.95

'.7..

0.60 24.0 42.0 8;86

. 8.79,

16 55.3.

8.80 9

l.OD 40.0 70.0 8.72 10 1;~27 S0;8 88.9

• 8.6.4 I1I 1.56 62.4 169.2.

.55 1 4 2.25 MY0 157.5

.8.55 18 4.00 160.0.

280 2

.,.55 Note (1) S TD Gcqe Lenath S. 0..

.Remrks' 1-°,4n G

b.,-mAd.<,6

• • • Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment g/?

Page of 3 Dt cples Were Received

/g ferted Br-Approveg B De Copies To Drr-B-02851 -0

-Page 5of 31 Attachment I I

~~~*

• *FDLI9I *.

• LEMONT-M.ANI UFACTO Ru A3G-.CORPORATION.

-LEONT2 ILLINOIS

• ..FILE N4O._

Rejort of C1IH-WICALt. and Pt1Y5 CAL Tests of: ELECTRICFUJRNIACE STEEL 711 REf3AR I

I

.1 ZI 11

f:.

I.

MAY 31 72.

Cho.cd to SIMn-notsd1 Shlpptna Hatico CECO CORP., LEtMOfIT, ILL.

ATSF 168480

• .

• CAr Mugmbepr IeaANALYSIS STensile

.E

• I R. ed. Oaf Bed Test Maieo' Yield Point

• trength.

~

Ae Ordcr No Order No; No.

Slaob' S.:Si C zt Fromo lbs. per q. tn lbs. pTr ns Te Ore NO N.

N.

q r

37 73 02 045

.50320' 85897 i 18

.OK:

34 73 20 044

______51923 8So' 2

ON

_A68 37 70 021 047.

50320.

82692

,22.__

O

.. 1

,..1..._

la 0

La\\ =

f

D C.

Su 0

0 0

/ *I I'.

-AF
p_

0(..'

b§M/1I 4.

w r

_~

~

7I4 l.W

.ENT.

Ot IALITY 15

_=-

AL I ORIGINA.;.

-=.

==

I 1...

1 I.

=-

=

,=

=

1.

I Y10 lforaly certlfy tIn1 tha shoov froufies pro car roct As ront!aned In lb* rprorda of fh9 cp pm I

F.-ntLI, I.,

tijttA,\\r Mf\\3rtWACTUR:IN\\.!G CORPOFZATION ;.;

LEMONTVlLINOIS 71

.I

..1.1 Reporticf IEIMICA.L cnd Pl;YSICAL -ests-of EL CTRIC FtURACE

-. FILENO.

Chorrcd to C,

. I STEEL

1. 14 REBAR

Shlpptno NIotice,

\\

Cnr. it# '),Pr AUG 27

- 19 71 CEC0 CORP.j' LEMONT, ILL.

ATSF. 168252 &.168303 Mll Slab'--

ANALYSIS 6 --

OK

~

~......

Test Plece' Ylel-d Point Strength S~Rd r

Iend Cu l

36 In lbs.

.r Te.

stK ::.

Order No.

No.

e l, T t..

No;

'4 t

3

~i:o8.

Fro lb.52 1831

7.

° f_-

_.3-_03

.2 49938 8430 167. -

.OK 0___41__

3236

~82 5

~:

50320k 81730-

_`_7

.0K 5-A3 V

9 6.'5~564 82371

__17_

___ 396.

030 35

-17*

us-

~.7.1. ~49038.

8'1277 1

38 65 0j' 042 7.\\7**7 54166.

84615 17*

OK.

I3.,

..I.

I I

I (v.1

.4.

W

r1

.3

_ D la O

wo F

(v n

=.

z

Dcm p

il e E '.

==__

=

i.

=

=

C ONHI E I.I..

EQUAL TO THE CRIGIN L

==_

=

==

/

a We har y eertily thli the above t

fiure s orOr car7.

rect as Cchntaned In the records of tho company g~

1.

I I.

.'l G

0 *.

AION LEMONT, ILLINOIS

)

c &,If%

_X A ell I lor

&I-,

PRdt of CHlEMIMCAL OnJ PHYSICAL Tosts of EILECTflIC FETITCE STEEL

?i1i whorsod to.

REDAR.

AAR 1i1n 72 17

.Slltpping MTtotco _

Ctnnn--4. 5 L;t1UU

• uu1i I.,

Ltl.WUit Ip I LL.

ATSF 16W522 a

• wuI. a MIIm cul I

I I

I I

Ylo herelt: carif th-At the ebova figures are Cet..*

roct as contained In the records of the comper

D.L

• O RORW erC^*Tlt5'rrn-Uu!;

iu j

/

.FILE NO:

1'opart of CHMAiCA:ltL and P&:.<.;eeA9_

L

~t,-tF 'IL0rv^

YCv-C tnd%\\

Ss-.,-M

• 71 REBAR.

MR

~o7 S

• CEC0 conP-, LEMON4T,.I LL.

F..60..620:..

t Ssi

.p a

-i crt e_

I..

6rder No.

' t1111-Order No.

' Ifeo

• No..

...I

-. No.

I

.%.AIAMSI':

5-.

.9 Tesi Ploeoi

. G~t Fron.

Yleld Point.

bzi per iq. In Tensile

• Strength-

, lb,, rer

q.

5n.

6 In Di "

ncd. or Aroo

, Z,'-

.. T., t, C.

, M.

p S

s:1,

_=

CL.z 11 :37' 73 02 3

_.531 88461

.16 O

0 34513-*

0 A

75- 0 757 9t^

i*

Or7-l/(X-.

3 3057o6*..:.

37.1:

.. 8'9743_Lj2...0

.A33509 87 O 5128

°' '

,.B36171.

40 75 024 054 _.

_9 _3_

1 16

_OK:

I

~- -

I....

I B

t1 co

I

• I..

N I

I,

=

I __

_=_

== L=_

4 I

w I:r l1 3

.U2N FT QUAT Is..

EQUAL TO THE (RIGINAL..

. I crjo oiie nd e

I_

I_

6ovo n..).rrov o

ra^

irordi of IIo pm o g

,t5s i

f,S

H 0r

• t 4.

• 1 I.

I.

I.

p

.5

• I I.

I.

• S S

I..



.5 rGRY QCC12 2 RCV. 2/70 Name of Supplier _

INDIAtIA & MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCRETE-REINFORCEMENT BAR-TEST REPORT

,...C&

EL#11p C

-e_ e Report No. _

P.O. or Contract. No._

ASTM Designation A9-i e-tz 0ae<D Date 1// ?_

7 HET*

TEST BAR YIELD N

/TENSILE ELONG PASS REMARKS NUBR A.

IE POINT LOAD GAGE T

~AK KIPS t/

KIPS LEHG RJE 1

.3 36 78

.14 j

3 J0.

S S

G7sz z Ar

)04Ss.

z s ris-

/t'G o_

zs_

__o_

_s

_344 a7

_/~5.34E~

_.4z A

B OvO?

ASTM A615 GR 40, Y.40 KSI, T.70 KSl SPEC SPEC MIH. ELONG.

SIZ AREA YIELD TENSILE GAGE LENGTH SIZE

. SQ. IN..

KIPS KIPS

[H. (1) 3 0.11 4.4 7.7 8.86 4

0.20

. 8.0 14.0 8.95 5

0.31 12.4 21.7

.8.95 6

0.44 17.6 30.8 8.95 7

0.60 24.0 42.0.

8.86 8

0.79 31.6' 55.3 8.80 9

1.0D 40.0 70.0 8.72 10 1.27 50.8 88.9 8.64 11 1.56 62.4 109.2 8.55 14 2.25 90.0 157.5 8.55 18 4.00 160.0..

280 8.55 Note (1) STD.Gage Length 8.00" Remarks

eoA, 1i U

9

o 4

Ca3c No.: ED-040303-ol, Rev. 0 Attachment Page /° of 3 Dcte Samples Were Received Tested By 01 Z

Approved 8 ate Ceoples To:

DIT-3-0285i" I

Page IOof31

o i of Su

'INDIAFNA & MI DONALDC CONCRETE-REIN'FO C4 CIHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY.

COOK NUCLEAR PLANT RCEMENT BAR TE.ST 'REPORT ReportHo.

Desijnatian,44,

-4~Q Date pplie o

.. P.O. or Contracet No.

.ASTM I

I 1'

ETYIELD TENSILE ELONG

/

TEST BAR POINT LOAD.

AGE-PASSD REMARKS NUMBER Ho.

SIZE

. KIPS KIPS]

LENGT' REJE HET TEST BArR PASS

4.

C3s-6 8-LK/3 2

34. o 53 G

, kAL 1______

33.3

,3 bss d 3 7s

{A.

_Zs

_i.G iG 7

33

/_

bs__/

C3 V 4'/o J2 z3 v_

_45__

____L.

/.. l z.97 3 6, G 9.

f337ota

/9 VG zz.o 60'8

/S

,637,0 zo I

=

3G____.____

Zo ~~~

~~

z 93.As ASTM A615 GR 40, Y.40 KSI, T-70 KSI A

A SPEC SPEC MIN. ELONG.

BAR

.AREA YIELD TENSILE GAGE LENGTH SIZE-SQ. IN.

• KIPS KIPS IN. (10

3.

.. 0.11 4.4 7.7

.8.86 4

0.20 8.0 14.0 8;95 5

0.31 12.4 21.7 8.95 6

0.44 17.6, 30.8 8.95 7

0;60 24.0 42.0 8.86 -

8 0.79

• 31.6 55.3 8.80 9

1.00 40.0 70.0 8.72

.10 1.27 50.8-88.9 8.64 11 1.56 62.4 109.2 8.55 14 2.25

-90.0 157.5 8.55

.18 4.00 160.0

280 8.55 Note (1)

STD Gcge Length 8.00k R nemcars /,4 o A.,5:

/-.

Calc No.: SD.040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment 6

Page t of Daoe Samples Were Received Tested By -

9

)

Approved By Date T7 DlT B-028ij00 Coples To:

Page2l of 31

FORMI QC-I Z REV-2/70 Name of Suppli

.P.O.oar control INDIANA

& MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY

• DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCRETE-REINFORCEMENT.. BAR TEST. REPORT cr

• C.

S; -~', z:

Report No.*

t No.

ASTM D signatian.t4w/5D-0 Date ________z.

YIELD TENSILE

.ELONG HIEAT TEST BAR PASS6 NUBE ~

SZ POINT.

LOAD-.-*GAGE 'J.REMARKS KIPS

.KIPS.

LE14GTt

,6 3 6 14 4t I

O

~

O ~

. Z 2 J ' ' s 60.,~e

~

is.

6 A45 8 ~ '

.-9.

A l E

9.*,z A ss i Ii I

j JI I

I ASTM A615 GR 40, Y-40 KSI, T-70 SPEC SPEC 4

.EAR AREA IELD TENSILE GA

.SIZE -.

SQ. IN.

ISIS 3

0.1.1 4.4 * *

.7.7 4

0.20 8.0

.14.0 5

0.31 12.4

.21.7 6

0.44 17.6*

30.8 7.

0.60

• 24.0 42.0

.8*.

0.79 3*316 55;3.

..9

• -1.00 40.0 70.0

• 10.

.1.27 50.8

• 88.9 11 1.56 62.4 109.2 t14 2.25 90.0 157.5*.

18 4.00 160.0 280 Note (1) STD Gage Length 8.00' KSI Remarks

/)AbA/4 4/r/ Y

/,w/,t UIN. ELONG.

,dE LENGTH N.(*

• Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0

.8.8 6

• • Attachment 6

Page of 8.95:

.8.95 8.86 Date Scmples Were Receiyed *_Z_ 4_7_Z 8.80..

8.72 Tested Bj i__

8.64 8.55 Apprved BCie 8.55

.~

5 Copies To:

DIT-r-i2SS0-0o A

I Page 12 of 31

.C.

CO P.

I.E;

,ONTI MI8ANUFAtCTURUXG-CORPORATION LEhtONT, ILLINtOIS

.*.7 D

FILE NO LTECTRIC FURNACE STEEL EA_

A 41 72 Shipping otloice

)NT)

I LL.

• C

'i

\\SF1 68336

• Car* umbor

=NL~I %

es

. _ =

-TC*stM'lPll*SiSi.rFoma

.Weld Point-Strength n-

.ra Se v __,__

=

Oretlc No.

Oidler No Ibmet

.I

. No.

Si ob No.

I

=

C 3493ti-,%

6 -01 04- )O.-

__=_9.70 77~.. 4_22_.

OK'

.3" 9

CS42 34 63 019-ga_

74 79354--

21.l

.A658 4-.

S__..

, W___._.__

I 7

AR6A~_448Ft

_1 _ _ 1S __ - 1,1,< c 9;.8c06 4 787'06A 21" f

I 00 tj

,-1....

A

.- L.

_-: 4_

1.

I..

.:~. ~..

g..

r-

,~~

I__

In c) to C.

0 coc

~~~~~~~~~~

"77 --. /-- ;

.- ONTE

-7rMACT NTQl I THI :ORIGUNAL f

W~u !zrjtj7 cart1R ttiot stil atblva ;ii;trcz5 v-ra ecxr.

• rect n: coatrlni! lIt ltnt r:Srordla ol tfift &L

. II

-.1

. ~__ --

_;S

-'Ap E~

.ON MA' A~~tlql StRN7CTL IMMWG-CORPORA~T 1ON LW.t

_LI_

..,;r;ofC:t "tC.! azi* ItSC~. eis fEL2CIMIIC F-tRfIACE ST1E 7gm REBARt Chargerl OM

• • • • • Shipping l"'alice ECO0.C0RP.--w LEI-IONT, I LL.

ATSF 1 68551 5!9

,.r d-to

• .r I'umbar

• O d rt

• X

.Skb*

ANALzYSIS%

etlc lllPfts.~.E~.Red.

of Tet*

TostPie yiel 6fn

Sta, Aea 14-.

7<

4*38 6,._._" =i= M_,q!.Zvt

$ na67ag :... 3~~~4 68 04s.._=.., >

2rR =-

.r..

-. P-I.

-0t 11A-I n,

I r,

-1 0
%O

!2
,

I?

49 9eb

.RItj C43

_. 7

_ _

• 1.

_ I I__ --

t__.

1.

0w trP g

9 c~

.1 6

t:

_-.. I X

71

.I I.. *-.

t

_a'~

__iaj 1... I.~v

__v-._ _ __ _ _,!,l e -...'

Iof~

inL__."

..I41:..

'! :&scel.'t.r !;lenv l;:ostn wt/^

ecN"j

I ORIGIAL L~lON,.

.1NOI EQUAL TO THE rAITY IS

,O,

I

FILE' a'^r~t o C

[C~ I adt1 Pti(#;cAL To~ts or ELECTlIC FURIIACE STEEL

,6 REBAR Chorge;I to

• ShIlpping tVolicn Ckarg I d

CECO CO6lP.y LENIONT ILI.

ATSF 16B3535 S~Irtpod to Cr

_t__

_cr_**

./**

, /

I NO.___________

J AM 19, '.

yx

.i r

i r

OrJer No.

Mill rder No:

/-..-

Heot.

No. _% I1, Slob'

- Nlo,_

ANALYSIS %

Test Plece

,CQutFZrorn.

Yeld Paint.

lbs. per.5q, fIII TentlIe

. Strength lbs. per*

7 sq. In.-.

nEl i

'M Red. of

Area I....

-C-M P

I1 I

I Test OK h

OK__.

-L.

I v-h

.~

_., I.----- 1---

C,

~~~~~~~.

.t.

I,...

¢ s

t.'.~~~~~~-

r'y *:rly:t 'a* v.-t:-

/

• ?

t~~~~~~~~~t

?S-

~~~I :

J 4'a S:'.JJf'-.e;,-,.,-,S,..

/

. - X.

.I. - @-

~.

j,"..

.1 o

QAT ftEORGINAL

,LN..........

C\\ONsr ILK 310 !tl~l~t'CALe'nd F51MCAL Te~tt a r-EzCT

=l L

,V7r

,G-CON"ITURI.A TION

. FI~ii NO.

OCT 5^

i'

7 I

• clarj;ed to'.

-t_1..

..CECO CORP.1.LEMONTI ! LL.

• .- * 'n Car ftcu b

1 68657.

tbt S lo, AAL S*Si_.

. u F r om 1 b $. p e r q-I s q. In.

E qc.o l

A3601'8 635 6S 023' 051 8....

84318 19.. o I :..

0345Z 34 7-4`

t 45 '-..:

I I

N,5)33xx-...

,,o,

.:OK -.

1tT`

C34:540 3 6 i 6 I0'1 51 0 02'

43. 772 21

__. _,I.

..

• C14518 '.

t' 15 *70 O02 03

1..

.52222 8b00O -

22

_-=A36033 75 103' 28 5386' l054 19

-" 4 - -

U3 as

° crs 0

. J

A 1 SP R _

MX t oc M//

,.c

,X>?

I..

II.

W.,/

t I 1.. I

1..

-t "ss 4' @..

I I.

.:7-..

L..- __

i./.,

.-j-'.-

2.

_0079'r.

.'T"L, I

.::-, -e-' "

l4t IS U

O-N lu~f s L,.!AONTP MAMUFA.CTURUING COP,'13 A 10,-llN -

.EdUAloTollD 1t.

EM.ONT, ILLINOIS Z

BOe~

ir;lcKnlprscL rcfs~cTRIC FURNACE ST2ETr 2 27RB\\...........-

A'?.,:'

r.

F.C 11.1 CAL er7eio ROAR*' *.

ptn s~

a mi PHY riCA T

est' tT ATC

'1fR ett

.x I

• UCISCU--CUIStU y. 1trJUNI ).1 LIe i...1,,1,..-

11a%

s I-

.241plwo ro * -.

_u

.u ur**

a I

I

.I I

I Order. No.

SlHoot Slav 1Nor ANALYSIS %

4

• Tost Place

-Ct-lkem-C.Mt

• Yield Polnt' Volz jrdr'&q-T Tensile.

. Strength

-0rper-ts-in In itEloiga.

n 2 Relti. olF

/ Areo

_.f. -

• Tensl L,

i
,],

=304

1. 1 35_ 70 02T 045 576_.6.6 87666 18

=

O0:

• A36598 1 4 66 028 064.

.*591 66 T

]7 5u0'

_-...a~i o

6 000 1 9 000 6

0y

-4 1:'1A THEe

' I 0 9-V.

._2-

!214

.I.

R ~=

R,>

a D

C~

w

- 1/--J;110

,I

_y A -)

-A -

`7:--

.. I I

I I

V -

1

J.

Et R -1 0..I --.

.0 4

I I,

I I

_ _ __. j_

~~... 1,_S.eir flin the____..-_. __...

<f

{v te-:t

~~~~~~~~~~~nl C-mntalned In Ih43 ra,:cr! t <¢:t-!3t..............................;

of

,m

,: -5.P..

• Lffi

E',.A,'iT f1_tD%-,EUFA8CTUR1MGCOR"JA Io 0o>

.?1\\to lAto wHE o.flGINAL -.

LEMON sT. ILLlt!OlS

.PL xi@

zLfoto ss'Ct.on

~~'IN at fEuCTRId URgal!CF STEEL

-7~ REB3AR JA;i 2831

• z Chared o

• -ShTipptnsNostco

• .*CEG0CO coP., LEM.ONTI I LL.-

-ATSF

.1 6U557 nl:C iI n*ANALYSI; Tesi El ed t.

"'da No o

No.

S Si.

Sut From:

tbs. pa sq n Ms pe Test.

°1, A

.33. 77 026 593 I '

893u -1 6 'K

-E

=

'1-1--

1 F

-F 1-2 t5: 1==1-X R=-FH==6

.1ne

=t HfXEEXX 1 :A;.3 I ylnt

!e 0v>- eo)SM2 g'tX:%***¢x 0ncl~lI re:l e7<..' /t/ -<>8.._

au 1-

/

a

,f s 1, I GC 0

9

-A N

..i@

coTENT.Q RGUA AI:,

EQLUATI 0 E

L.!OON;, ILLINOIS.

'FLI Mi.3:lt of CUI:MICA. ~n,] 1PHYSiiAl Tc3s

'. ELECRIC0. FUMILICE, STEEL 8.ER Charged ta tlalco CECOOORPLRIO OU I LL.

uAtTSF 5 68149.

• JU

'71 7.1 7 :

_7I T 1 T.....

TI

• ts

-I IT 1'. h NLT15-Ep.

Rid!

V 1

I

.Ja I

iNAL it7 es1 1'5",

It' R. ol Order No.

. Sw.

,CuT--t

-Prcem Poinbt lr.nt

/ Ar° Bond ICut From j/bSpO..-

Test

_-S,_

rI-835501.

8.

73 "02qQ45d

_._T5607 5 8645 i It OK

)

4 I

t I

I I

+II-C33682.

.33.1. 69 01.1.03A-48481 I1801261.o20 -7 l

A349.67;

• 351..66

.01H o4od..

.48987.

80631

.19 I-.

I II1 I.

l

.A34988 361*.-'671 Oi 61021.'

,4.4936.... 76202L2i-

21

_~~~~~-

I

• t

. J I~

I.

01<...'-'

l '.

r I_

-I I-i--i--I

• -I-I---1---I

.4,

_o

__II__

S Ia

1.

0

,g Z

0I-a 5-e, FL

.8 I 1

I 1

1 -

I1 1.4 I

4 -

Al J/qr fIV'I."



III-cj iviri f4 4



I U/i__

I I---- _

1

_I.

_ *..o

.. 1.

.5) rc

' - s!.

'l.

l S z-.

/

S; 4 *".

CVtITENT'QUALlW 1S

• EQUAL TO THE L c-m'.IAL

• R;?0rt0~~F(i-cLCainlscT~~f.LCTRIC FMrIACE STXEL..............................

8 REBAR

,JAMl.

27,*'

Corgel o

• Shipping.

Notice S'-pet CECO CORP#,

LEb',ONT, ILL:.i Car Numb;er

.~

.I 77 1d.o

. Mill"

. Wrei No.

Heat..

.. N...

ANALYSIS % * :. -..

s I

Tess Plce

.Cut From Yl;ld P-lnt Ib5; per *q; In

.TensIls

.Strength' Ibs. per-.

. go. In.

El'g

,- %7., I

.Reo. of

..Areo Mn I - P. I S I. i 1 _

.Test.

o A-A P

I' 7nl niA n>N....r I

!]~i Af.RA,-:,

.. 1 2

= I-_'

I I r

.v I

,I.

. - ss

-Z- -, Y.

i. I I.-

I II

. 1.1..

C5020 7 02 1, I

1 5316 h 4

.. 14.t 8

=.

n!a< -)

"I.

I l *

• I- ~

.2 '*

I

' - I

r a

-. L-n (A

Ic N c°R 1

o6 n

V -,

A' -k 1
-

A/

1A -" -X _'

l 0030

-I...,,..... _

.0,0 1

M 7

In

,h a

is ci.LE.Q".ONT Ccrrtof l.',:C^ cn1PiY'SI.L Tcsfs Of 'ELECTRra

.CECO.

COR9P. I LE.4Off It 11 611Aie MU ACT!URINt G 0RP:

R/%- IO X0N'

... EMONT. lLLINiOIS.'..

.I

ILE NO.-.. 7...

le)

MIAtrJCE'STEM' REBAR.

JAIIl 2;,

72 L.

SF 1

8 1

~~~~n t~tDt°03XF1l3 L.

S bbJ ClAr t.111-1-0 d

Mil.

ct Sloob

-AiAYI lTest Plece Yield Polnt Strenoth In Ar. ea.

Boi Order No.

Order No; No;:

No.-

S S

Cut From lbs. per sq.In.

Ibs. par o _

5Test n

P sq.. I

/../

t351-57.

6 6

2 4

.5463, 536 /1e

.a 3 6 6,.

8 044 57 31__

4.A3G688 66 o0 53j9 85569 1

.0 I

. I _'

_I

1.

La ti

.1ut

-189 1

1=~~~~C-1-:

H

• CD z~.

*l.>:fs:.t:st~x:

@.ts j--,'

• t. 2Z *S L-;2 t > o..-.J8 l t1I Fi n -¢ !. ;'?t

-:- *-ze

COtINTE QUAC IS.

- tA gIAL.

LEMONT;. ILiMl 3

llcpolvof clilv1.1c.41l 2n~d psysCl t ose'ces of E'LEC~TRIC FURNAM.STEKI i'-tlO nEBAR

'AUG 30 Clhcrgiid to" ;*@

S;Tpn itc

• <t10CEC O

-oPEIONIT1 IL

.. :..C'i!b.

AT&SF. 1 68333._

, A 1

I, 7.1 -.

1).. -

6;rd Test

~

~~~

• Ordeir No.

Ordor No,.

He'at

.S1'..

,...:t.I.-

ANALYSIS %.

• I

. ~

~

~

Il

.e

.l T~estr Pleocm g.p e rlel Pol-ntt. SrI Ieng 9th9 Cu Frm

• bt!

Ie~sl Ibf

Per_,

nEla.,

n_R;__

Rod. of Xreo

-C.

IlW.1l.l P..-.I:.'s.-I --qt I-"

E33

.72! 0

37. 78: 019..._.:

.0j. 8385 0*3

.,.37 73 01'5. 030 b 5'0787 Pi

• 8188

-* 20 *:*

O 0 342o6-.

• .l i _

A3 561

~~..

..036131 -

(g B3581 0 a.

v-l r

1 )

3° 6

X B g X

CD 36 72 020. 10441

...j968._:

186'614- -11 8 S

+ -

• 37

.35'

._7_

70:-

.73 -

020 02<

64.p

_, I 553 6

I -

f.

.J I/

053

1. 7637

.Bi1 02 /

a.~L..

197 7Z.

j.

I

_1 I

OK

^. :.

J 0X)-,'-,- -', --- '

...-.' -'S._.-

I s_,.,_

I I

LI' I '

Iw0s_*

I_

_I I

I-~ ----

I

.1

1

.... ~

-~E =.Zl )@ZZ -.

/- 1/ - -7I t_

s--t f

I r

1W_.

__ 11-1 -:

/

..?.. 1

I v -..,/ /)

/ 41

t. L,.-

.--,
I r(.11....

,7

1'1/1.

-; Is1-

• -n 'alcc In -_i.na

.1 I.

S S

I.

• 1**

I.

S i.

I S.

I..

• 1-1*

• a S.

5.

S I...

C roRm cc-sz itry. 1/70 INDIANA & MICHIGAN. ELECTRIC COMPANY DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCRETE-REINFORCEMENT BAR TEST REPORT

',e ei S 7F*

4JE,4 Report No.

No.

AST/A Design7ilori eld Date S O.,.

S Y ) W Name of Supplier P.O.'or Contract I

.7 hy & A, 7-HEAT TEST B R

'Ply LAVD G

SREMARKS

-NUMBER No.

SIZE AE REJECT

• KIPS KIPS LENGTH

,4 37472

/

i//

L e9?.WS SI~

L ~

_ _ _ 2 liow z-aS.

9.,I 45_

.3 f 0 3 J3 oL/

AX; Z

5 9L

/ 4 9

'/

8 /. o.

/Z 7. i q.,

e *ll 7A z7 26c 9 z

.2_

_1 6

9

_Om_

It, o

9soe/

L L J AOr

- AST.M A615 GR 40, Y-40 KSI, T-70 KSt..

SPEC.

SPEC, MIN. ELONG.

BAR AREA YIELD TENSILE GAGE LENGTH SIZE

. SQ. IN.

KIPS KIPS IN.(l) 3.

0.11 4.4 7.iJ.

8.86

'4

0..20 8.0 14.0 8.95 5

0.31 "

12.4 21.7 8.95 6

0.44 17.6 30.8 8.95 7

0.60

.24.0 42.0 8.86 8

0.79.

31.6 55.3 8.80 9

1.00 40.0 70.0 8.72

.10 1.27 50.8 88.9 8.64

..11 1.56 62.4 109.2 8.55

.14.

2.25 90.0 157.5 8.55 18 4.00 160.0 280 8.55 Note (1) STD. Gage Length 8.00" Remarks IoA bwirZ nr -AA4AV',, ~

Date Samples Were Recelred 7/46172 Tested By a

'Approved By-d 2 Date7-,2?-?

Copies To Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment Page Z*5 of

CONTtal f4 EMONT MANUFACT.URuZAG CORPORATION EQUAL THE ORIGINAL.

LEMONT, LEM NTILLiNOIS...

.Y

• MAY 31 L

i.

~72 Rcport of C6E:IC.L ond PHYSICAL Tests of ELECTRIC FlJEUACE STEEL 7i?11. REBAR.

Charg3ed to CECO CORP.,

LEM.4ONT, ILL;.

S~,.* ShT~plrng NORtcoI ATSF 168480 Tes Pi.

_pg.

Redsr.

o f JI Heat:

Slob

. ANALYSIS %

TeTensile Elo.

Red of nd OOrder No.

rd lr He.at.

c*

• s FmPmec Y al Paint StreflL in Are-*

Tatn OOrdsrNo.

No.

No.

S Cut From Ibs. per sq. In Ibs: per Test C.-

__P

__S

'___sq

~ ~

17616 37 7309 045 50320 1tS5897./) 01 OK 2

• -j O

_A Z 2.34 73 2 044.

519 23..82 51

• 2 o

n6M 37 70 021 047

..032.

82692 22.

.~

-r.

Z-i

• • ==

./

=

=..g

=

2

.. 7

• 7.

-U

)'

C) t*t) a1:1 4 %t l 1 ;

5w

- 0 6

,I 1 4_fVop

."F I

`

L I I.

i.i i rr'~

1 i I

• I*

~

I_

.. IL I.

a S

S



.5 S

• 1 S

.5...

- Jrn*

I We hereby cortity that the0 above flouras are Cc

.rct as contained in the records bf the ceama

LEMONT CONT.EMTT QUACITy IS

' °ANT~oT'H ORIGINAL, EqUAL Tr THE o

.ir I

Re~port-of CHitlCAL and PIYSICAL'Tosts of ELECTRIC ChoreJe to Sp to CECO CORP;.*,_ LEIONT, l

Spprto:

MANI"UFACTURING COPRPORATION LEMONT, ILLINOIS

~~~~~

0 I FILE NO.

/

.. I

.i.

. - L/;'

s '...

c FURNTACE STEEL

• #11 REBAR CL?..t--v

..: MAY '31'

p.

nn hIE -

LL.

enr Numbrer_

0

• ATSE 168675 I

I I

1*

r I

,R d,.or Ordertl.a Mill Order No.

Heat

., No.

. S ab No..

ANALYSIS %.

Test Piece Cut Fr6mo-C Yield Point lbs. per sq. In Tensile Strength

. lbs. per so. In.

El~Ig.

I n. crO.

Red. af Area Mn P

n.

S Si

. Test..

1.

L.

.iJ5C A3683B

,1;

• 1 1

37 7 047 50320 2692 22, 2'0_

W a

37. 70 0 2. ~0'48

.04 7_.......'6i 3770 021 53525

• 35 06 41 8465 7

1.

_18, OK

.A*._._

37636 37 73 022

04.

50320.

5B97

7

,.16 3_

4 1

'O.

~~~

• I I I.

-.I A

I" 10.

Ct)

C)

C.)

3 1

eno M

o w

222 MD

.M 0

1T I..

A.

-I-

-I-

• 1-I I.

I I

' I 2i 1 5!

.w N

.WVe horety certify that the eolroe floures tro co I roct as contoTned In the trecords of the compon 9!0

.0 I

I---

!..........1..... I -

1.

I-Mht I TnTI-lIflRimmo4.

.EMONT MAMIUFACTURUMIG CO13 LEMAONT, !LLIIS OIS I P OR[AT I ON

• .I AAB 1 3.- 72.

Rleport of CHIECAIC&L'cnd PHYSiCAL Tests of ELECTRIC FURIIACE STEEL lnrr:tA

_0

.anlonlnn rlXhtf St innea io.

" \\ CECO CORP.,

LEMONT, 'I LL..

r C e;thrrn4pr ATSF 168649:-

i APAL-SS %.Tesi.le E

Red.f Order..o Mill Heat Slob

.ALYSIS Test Piece Yield Poln Strength IWn Area o.nd eOrderNo.

No.

Cut From lbs.elb.

per Test Nre

~.

• ~. N.1

o.

p er s q.

nn T es

.37097*

i1 39 72 0

042 5487.

89102.

7 21_

OK.'.

.3.334i 38 ;76 01 45 55769 85S76

• .19

.A66§2 7

78 021 041

5. 2884 8

6

. OK

.L

.1*1 6u>

C

=1

-A h7tareby cerltfr that the cbovy flvurez ormc tas eantalflod In thFeo d rt e r m o the.

.rd

T ORIu Ccc.Iz-zIty:. /7e INDIANA & MICHIGAN ELECTRIC D'ONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR COtICRETE-R.EINFORCEMENT BAR COMPANY PLANT TEST REPORT OLOC" 9-e

• >A E P

'°;P;

• Name of Supplier e P;O. or Contract No.

MtL 4o

°.

A.

Report.No ASTM Designation __________Date_

YIELD

'TENSILE ELONG HEAT TEST BAR PON OA A

PASS~

• UMBER No.

SIZE POINT LOAD EL AEJE REMARKS KIPS

• K~~LENHH S3 G a

3

//L

,7G.8 £30 39.

G ASS5 3

/

2q.- 43

-el A_3SZ a r

I 76

/2-3 Z78 A 3G 282m

2.

3

/3/

9 z

_____s____.

/3t 1_

_ 1..

II i

• I

I ASTM A615 GR 40, Y-40 KSI, T-70 KSI SPEC SPEC MIN.'ELONG.

BAR AREA YIELD TENSILE GAGE LENGTH SIZE SO. IN.

KIPS KIPS IN. (1)

• 3 0.11 4.4 7.7

• 8.86 4

0.20 8.0 14.0 8.95 5

0.31 12.4 21.7 8.95 6

0.44 17.6 30.8 8.95 7

0.60 24.0 42.0 8.86 8

0.79 316 55.3 8.80 31.

9 1.00 40.0 70.0 8.72 10 1.27 50.8 88.9 8.64 11 1.56.

62.4 109.2 8.55 14 2.25 90.0 157.5

.8.55 18 4.00 160.0 280 8.55 II Date Samples Were Recelved _

Tested By Approyed By Ju g 2 t1'Date ?2/27 Note (1) STD Gage Length 8.00"

'Copies To Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Page C2 of 3i

.. I FlAlt LU0O NIT MANUFACTURUMG CaQzPOIATiOm

CONTENT, QbALITY IS EQUAL TO THE ORIGINA.

LEMONT, LINO'6S Report of CHIE'.1CAL and PHYSICAL Tests 4F ELQCTRIC iA0.E. STEEk.

1. 11 REBA(2

/ -p

,J;P-I FILE 10 I -

LiAS 13-.. ' T7 Chtsged St IMlIneA ot

.. CECO*CORP., LEMONT, I LL.

.SMVppng tVoITco*

G.w4M,-e-ATSF i 68649

. O k.

Order N; mill Order No.

Heat, No.

" AALYSIS %

.Slab No..

Test Piece Cut From Yield Potnt tbs. per sq. In T'nsl"'

Ibs. per so. In.

El

%nM I

Recd.

of

. ked.

Z% -

Decnd..

Test C

I Mn S'

S1 I

B37097 11 39 720 t_

4807.

21 o.x

_A36334

.38 76

.. _5, _______

A36682-:

371 8 021 041

.884 8493<

i6

-ox

~~~~-

=__

.=--.

,_S I

I

'.j:.

=

= ="_

_ _1.,11.

','+/-~

..* i. =

ql-:._

.I to C) too D

6 s

.CO

-101"
-

X e

I

1.

W

,=T 1__

• -jeey cetilfh thet *ta ctovw fln.or v.:

as contained In the racards of tha.==p

.*-z.

I Fa4LI4

\\:

LMOL 1

\\CONTENT QUALITY IS YAQL TO THE ORIGINAL Report of CUlE.ICAL and PHYSICAL Tests Of ELECTfIC Chorged to I

.. "I MAI,.UFACTLJRINP1lG CORPORATION.

I..---.

p 1*

1/

Li 1.

II LI.

. LEMONT, ILLINOIS.:

FURNACE STEEL 1 1 REBAR

. --11

, FILV

.1

.ArP P 26S

• 1I a~*S~rpni~Nofl' co

\\

CECO.Cer::.,

l LEl

!T,. ILL.

• ._j.AT".F 1I V 7-9 cont t2.1 I-I F

I..

I Ord er tiao.

Mill Order No.

Hoot.

No; Slob No.

ANALYSIS %

Test Plece Yleld Pofnt.

Cut From tbs. per sq. In p e r q.I Strerogth Ibs 30 ARed o Il

,I -'s t

.Cee I.

Mn P

S Si

t.

022 3

_.1 C 33 O118..

'A I 7000O i j 5 19 2.3 8 17 3 0 ~.

16 L L M 3 2 6.

_C.2 Q

2 0 55 4 4 8 7_

_ _--j

.1

-1I 1,I 1 -

W..

I I

I

-I-



I t

I I

I I.*I I

.*SIS...

• 

I

• t

f.



I I----.---.---

co

'.5

- S3 I.

• A 5,

S..

• 

0 I.

-

S.

S S.

I I

I I

I I

M \\ - -' I _ _ _ I I

I..

I...

I

_ _ _ _I__

.I J.

I

- 0 t?1y certIfy that 116 &bov flgures or. ce't.

acontotned in the records of th6 opn

~EXONTMA1%UFA'CTLURING CORPO1RAW10N CONs4TE19T QUAL1`TY ~EM EALTO THE ORIGINAL

• .LEMAONT, ILLINOIS.-

IEtO.

ELE~UIC URUAE STEL.

1. 11 RED AR Riport of CH.'DIMCAL and PIIYSI CAL Tes

___s__FURNACE____STEEL Charged to

.Shlpping Notieo

• CECO OORP., LEO..IL ATVS 168159 Shipped it_______________Number___

_____-.A___

..AR 13

• .,7 r

r 1

.r 1I Order No.

.hMill Order No..

Heat No.,., -

SclaV*

No.

\\

ANALYSIS 7..'.

I Test Piece Cut From C

Me Yield PoWnt If,. per sq. In.

• Tensile Strength' lbs. per sq. In.

2 in'

*

5%

Red. aF Area 13.;nd S

B37097:

7. 1 1

'39

~2 0'18 042 54807 891'02 21

'OK fl37276 39 022 oQ3 55 4:48 894~3 i5 OK B37247 -

.40:.7*

2 871 J-OK.

£

.~OK Aa6 1

\\..O L

.2J.

.1 I

1.

ei-.

I.

_ p- -*z

6.

L

.L.L.L.L.LIlL

.5. _________________

tflaures areCO c I the campany' 1.-

I I.

FORM CCI 12 REV.

2/70 Name of Su P.O..or Car HEA NUMB INDIANA & MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY

. DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCRETE-REINFORCEMENT BAR TEST REPORT let ie~

o

• r:lez Report He.

.tS

'e C.

pp I Itract No.

ASTM Designation Dg/*-6 ddI?

Daa

/g

/;

I.

.I

• I I.

I I

.* ;i I I..

I.

.I Si

i. I I.,

-I I I ASTM A615 GR 40, Y.40 KSI, T-70 KSI

. SPEC SPEC MIN. ELONG.

SBZ A R,

A YRE IELD TENSILE GAGE LENGTH 3

0.11 4.4 7.7 8.86 4

0.20.,

8.0 14.0

-8.95 5

0.31 12.4 21.7

.8.95 6

0.44 17.6 30.8 8.95

7.

.0.60 24.0

.42.0 8.86.

8 0.79 31.6 55.3 8.80

.9 1.00 40.0 '

7.0 8.72 10 1.27 50.8 88.9

.6i 1

1.56 62.4

.109.2 8.55 14 2.25 90.0 157.5 8.55 18

_ 4.00 160.0.

280 8.55 Note (1) STD Gage Length.8.00" 1

l.

Remar:

..Remarks A -u?;6- ;A"' 7'- /- /y4; Calc No.: SD-040303o001, Rev. 0 Page §L of at Date Samples Were Receeved Tested Bj ec Approved By Date 6j/

7Z*

Coples To:

Drr-B-02851-00 Page 31 of 31

PURCHASE ORDER MATERIAL RECEIPT

>rk'e-Q~eoo) _

Qo-p.

RECEIVED AT Indiana & Michigan-Power Co.

Donald C. Cook tluclear Plant Const. Dept.

Pi 0. Box 458 Bridgman, Michigan 49106 PREPAID Cy,)

COLLECT (

I begs Baerels I Boxes I5undleticortonsl Coils I Ctra2 Pkges.l Nice L

ORDER No.

L4 5 to S C0(9 I

MATERIAL RECEIPT-To Main Acgt'g Office REQ.

No.

I I

• I 1'-~I I

I I.

STORES DIN NO.

CUANTIT TM RECIVD_

QM {

S4,d Pc&

II UNL.OADED by Cn, PI-LOC.A7801?

STOTIZED

_______I__I NOW TO BE USED...L2I2n

L:wJ.

C 1-s r, +.

PEldo

a.

IYX s "Ie'

.j I PART I i

Fi.,!-Slhlrrm 1 Dale Material Rec-d I n -,;,- -/..

VaDle 14Fl I j rN -, '4-I t

cwr-,Ir

) JP Y\\e-1nr I Exptiss I_ ror1 Freight Pao; No.

. I 1

FREIGHT U.P.S.

Weight 13.5, (

Deduct I,.m Invoice L&4s $

5.

Material Recoipi No. -

I ;3 rLl i.I Calc No.: SD-040303-Oa1, Rev. 0 Attachment "7

Page /

of 32

StopXo.Co.-ipa)ny Chcr~cd*

(7 O.Cccco Stool 4.Coco Erection orI Namc' 1,111Li17% 53P, 7 \\'omo Tncli.:rm

&. 1-acrlif--n E..j:icric Connr..r-r Address A~dmrss ED-i

Q 6 (D.C0.

Coo1c Iu~

~ ' P. -t city State city idf.-..2~

S I (Ito DESCRIPTION c OSTIIJG DATA NO.. I CON.

L~~~

O~ISTFICTI PFGo~UCT KOS.

TESTS

.ARTICLES Sa T 1 ORDER NO.

F AI C

conc WCJGwT

___MI 3B's roinfoircing etelq 9--7-CT,--

job_

96-7O6,4 65 -5 9o_

i \\C.o.D.

Rcmorks a.a

• , (.mo7 C.O.D.

• uniessz Ot.--ouIt is il~.Own) a-d 7-7.

N T-eL7= ~fc~

a9, Matericl Received By L/A fly J--r t IF

/O - 35 7Z-4-,-,.

I Consi~cne cccepted rcaodz wit.~Ou? O;cr-.m ZIConsisrico tooka exception. S ta~r &10.

Calc No.: SD-040303001, Rev. 0 Attachment C____

Page 2 of 32

Cmnc' 0I.or~cd*

Stc?,NC. (C.

O

)cl E%

.C 0 cl rcr C7 2=

-"-Ccoco E.-Oction

.Ad.arcsz -

lomnion.

53?

T

~Inii.n2 i~ch~ri ~h-i c-x-1 0 Addcos-.

T:,A; ',

6 (DqC-',

C-ccI:

zu=,!b:-)

' City stale City Bzid-mmn I.. a' f--

DESCRIPTION LCOST ING DATA

-o EU E

1IoSTl.cT! PROLUCT N.CON.

acos. TENTS

~ARTICLES jj ODRO.HAC c

~

WI1T Ms~z B,-'S rirloircing stae~l*

da 9-3-870O-Pcz-'77 3

• I 1 ~job phonz: 63-6-i1,65-59o3.

II s C. 0. D.

S.,

• Is <1o COD R cnirk:s VMaterid Rececived B~y A

IC' - 5'- - -7 2-I I

(e.-

Z/

--,
,

C-If-,

-~L=: 2-9-0 2a~tr'rd:

t.AFI I'

M ConSignoc accepted cgoods i;o o?

i

=Z Consignee took exception. See. otz sieo.

I I

I

.,.I A

Shot O-

/k-MAz e

coco cas # _

StS__

\\ %

haot Of 0 hcl,

1. ao-e

,r

/c..

L~

i I

. i i

- II

.1.

4 A

I i

V Calc No.: SD.040303-001, Rev. 0 7I/

Attachment Of Page.3 of

.TH-

. CEC CO RTI

&fi*.o CONTRACTOR.1^;*j

.THWCt3 iRPt A

0CN140 nB 77

-l A1!

-&lti*

_).

OTN

%lt i

~

l 0%.SHEET-';

_COLU:MNQ a I COLUMtN w 2 ti*

Wa J ii r _ _ +GRADE Rc3EM I S

/- - -_ 'TAG CO L O R _

LI) 1..t j

A./--3.

r MXt~AXIMUMt BNi)L'S

'3

_.4;

X~f--.

-t - 1;-°-4 MILL'TEST REQ'D. '....

S q~--l-M t --

7d t)-

-+;i -----

W n- - - qFOR THE CONIVENIENCE OF THE

__ X :,

7/_.............

t '...

l...

iCARRIER, HE IS REQuESTED TO

,_,,i

__,_.__4

_t.

_ '-_ _ tCAULL..... T..........

L/l2;IM 24l HOUIRS

~:

~

~

P';(R To DElIVIR;Y TO ARRhAN. 1-

^

1

,F05R UNLOADiNsG.

0 j r, 4

i _

_,1) IT IS.THE RESPOINSIBILlTY. OFJHfE.CO;?

l-*A F

.[.T.

1

.. '...SIGNEE TO CHlECK JH.I~S NMEPl

!,.b 1..t.

li

~.*

AGAINST

-THE..ATTACH £ lt t

st L

1_

_t_

i -.-

• LI-T'-IS.

. ~' -- * :-

r1-

--- :---:-;2)N CLAIMiS FOR S'HORTAGES WllLL i.:

1::.;_

CONSIDER(ED UNILESS CECO IS M07I i

• • s; WYITHIN 48 HOURSe AF I ER. Atritivi ii

.t.,!k-...1 AND GiVEN 'A *REASONABLE:

MD.)

,<SD-1 -4, TUNI YOVFY THtE ALLEGMiSHOP' AGE;.,.

} -- H9

.4 J. -i J..

l E

,3 ORPAENtTS WYILL BsE 1AADE t~f~b?

i~:

~s<

<,~j dwrw JJ jLESS T4t A13OVE PROCE.DURE 'IS F01

20.

Ip.:

t

@LOWED) EXCEPT UPON' RiECEIPTl.C0F A

.__,x~r~r.......... _.

t...EXTRA ORI)ER.

_}_ t@g __873......................... i..s m m

t

~Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 02v T l) i.....

.L~~~5..>- '~r=

Attachment/

, 1a T I

l.*.

~

jPage 4of3 J

.*~~.

i,.-

THE CECO C;0RP'0j:AT10N 9F0o

.C.

V

.-IB Ac rroR--il I~

l

• J i

icN, 0

x.

s~~ssr~~~iaTi5'-

rWtj9;,y.

-;jCqFJAL FO F

U R

COP T-. _*

DCv ML.^EN;S.'0PS OT r OUT ou

.;DIMEN~SIONSOMITrEo A.~ ZE.;'

e C

0 C.e

D tvf!L C-7 G

Kecr J...t I. tZ'-7P1r 1-

/14

< -1,t._r

,_L.._.,%__.

_ 3

.<~~~~~~;

'- 'P>=i'

-7.2-~.._

i.

't~7~_

'i_*_*t!

r~2;Ivf:

t-L--.i 7:1,-8-.

f -

^.!-

'~'>~~I~-+-t--'---

-L L 'tilts,:<.v 5

8

_t

-ljr_1 4

+--

t--

i--t-s tf6 T

7

~~~~~~~

1- _tE--..

Ca. c

-04030-01 Rev No. SD ra 4

1

~t~

X r-

~~~ -

~~~ ~-~~ r z---

-~~tt,.achm........

-- 1*--** --

en ads

.. ;A I

~

a

{-

Pagez <

of tS2 i.

I,._:.

,>;i

.. ; 1.- :! : -...!j-I. _ - i.

• e P-l r %-1 L

i T

7 I

I

• e

• si i

'-f I-

'~

1.

f t

Fst

_1 I.

I

• 1

-1) IT IS THE -RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONlSIGNUE TO THIS MATER,'AL AGAINS5T TH£ ATTACHED SHIPPIN, 2j 140 CLAIMsS FOR SHORTAGES Y411.1 BE CONSIDEREDI S' CECO IS NOTIFIED WITHIN 48 HOURS AFTER ARR!'I}

&ZGIVEN A REASONJABLE OP7GDTUtJI TY TO VERIF.Y TH.E ED SHOR.TAGE.

-3) N;O REPLAC£E.iEIT S W IllL B EP MA D UINIL ES S,"E.ABO'

'CEDURE t;S.- 'U';DbiP.*iON R ;_:Er'"-T Of ANI 0;

OR ER.

E K,

iST.

ESS k1D D, BEG -

.GRADE REJ.NF

..TAG UDr

-TON MAXIMUh<', BIND'U MILL TEST REQIED...

FOR THE CONVENIENCtE OF THE CARRIER, HE IS REQUESTEDT 0 fiE PRO-iCALL_____ :'.A-PRIOR TO DELIVERY TO ARR.AW_~E

.FOR UNLOADING5..

ri2 -

it4 LT..

.iA a

A N

A LEMONT; ILA.Ntus1";'

FILE NO._7______ ___

.Rerort of CHEMCAL aond PiHYSlCAL Tests of ELECTRIC FURUACE STL',EI LiJ1 E rS% ;

!; :;ipping N~otice AUG 27 'LJ7_1_'

hbaged to CECO CORP.,

LEMONT, ILL.

ATSF 168252 & 168303 00--!

l4-r.;

m-i-s~ln Tnsile E__g.

Red. of Order No.

Mill Heat Slab ANALYSIS %

Te__

st Piece Yield Point Strength in...

2, Areo Tent Order No.

No.

No.

C Mn S

Cut From lbs. per sq. In.

lbs. per Ts S isq

. In..

A35728 11 36 78 023 052 49358 84294 1 6

=

OK 36 76 017 040

__.___50320 81730 17 OK

=

36 75 023 048 53205 89423 16 OK

/

A3

_353_

39 66 030 058 525646 82371 17 OK 38 74 015 030 49038 83012 1

OK1 l

38 65 019 042 54166 84615 17 OK lo 3_

=_

=

==

=

l~ J i i__

1 f

tXfX1 I

I

-r lI I

1

_I C*

i

/

We hereby corilty thl the aeve fiurcs ore cor.

feet as contcolned In the records of tho ccompony a,

. LEONT CO I F:fAA tI-T iII t rs, 1&-IV I 9

z &,

I L.L.II I

%a i J Report of CHEMt.ICAL and PH-IYSICAL Tests of ELECTRIC FURNACE STEEL

• #11 REB~tri FlILE NO.HO. _ ___

• AAR 1.,

72 Charged to I

ro.

Shippin~g Nticeo

t. e CECO CORP.,

LENIONT, ILL.

r-----r r

-i--

-n

/r. I ;tie l bU007z?

Ca~r llun hor I "Test Piece Cut From Yield Point Ibs. per sq. In.

• Tensile Strength lbs. per sq. In.

El~g I n=

Red. of Area

128 80769 18 602 83012 20

. I

-o oI.

C) m 0

=

a a

a o

' 5 e

1, -..'

I..

PURCHASE ORDER MATERIAL RECEIPT DATE I 6-I 1 O7 U-

-1 I RECEIVED AT Indiana & Michigan Power Co.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Const. Dept.

P. 0. Box 458 Bridgman, Michigan 49106 71Tiz C-zo L

ORDR N. L 5

cyq

-(

e-,p:

I MATERIAL RECEIP7-To Main Acct'g Office REO.

No.

PR£PAID ><)

COLLECT I I

Ela Barels aexes 18wndles Cartons Cols I Crates Pkge.:I Pieces I

I I

I I

I I

I STORES QUANTITY 1IN NO.

RECEIVED I T t M S OiE J n S

OAI STED

.NOAE BY; o r_

9 sR LOCATIO mofw W 3F I I

I '

I fW Il -1I-r :%,, - I

S'.4^T3 tPART I I

u;SED

(.'2 kI -r

• -'- I

.Ilr l

I C C) C 1 l I !

l!

--NII IN,,.'. u.--.

"S hi tA (1i LL.1.

7~

I Y E ---i

-L co~a-re I )p P-rt cr freight Pra. No.

I Exptress I parcei I

r-roul

-I Weight L
161IG Df.O.S. Destinalion Deduct from Invoice

.9 sr.~eeper Material Receipt N FREIGHT IU.P.S.

5>.

Calc No.: SD-040303.001, Rev. 0 Attachment _-___

Page Z. of 3~

E C

C G 'b".

.3.

3 01

3U 02 vLY.0GnD'

..4-1,

• FlS4 4PerC.7p 4

' Pcr Cornpcny Chorgod'r itop No.

2co 313 M

O.Ccco Stcol EI1 4-Coco Erection N..e _

Aedrcss City -

• % *,$C.- a L..

a

° dres:

.t 6 (D.C. Cool:- lluclsar Plarv)

Ci-ty bid-;o.

S00o 7-c Stoctc DESCRIPTION I

'CO:TINC DATA I

C. O. D.

cmrs (3tO C.O.D.

I.- L:

unaci; cmcunt is shown) 23d

)Joosriori F

ccwevel By

\\tr)(,,,,Q C,, P. A,

1 )I 1 42-po 1-i: 'St-or=

l 2

Conticnco cccpto Icod: Wv,;;out ezo,.Siur.

I =

Consignco took exccption. '

os r :iJc.

_ _~~-

P'l 1.

I'.

i.

I.I I

Calc No.: S)O040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment '____

Page 9 d 32

Cornmcny Chacrod*

]te C

31 &

o0-CCco Steol lomontZ 53a j

Dasao*

j

/

J

/-;

i I 4. Coco Erection P4:

f T

c Xnliiarnl & MiicUi-z* Ejcct;-c Cc.,any 0 Add E.:;Z Ii6 (D.C. Coo'.:.....

as c1 Pa1.2r.)

ci¢c Clete__

.5X.....

Address ICity -

State _

DESCRIPTION

'COSTINC DATA

.0.I CON. I E

I E

IOISTRICT, PRODUCT CS. lTEtTS ARTICLES L

'I-.

ORDER NO.

tHARGE COOE WrEIGCHT PCS.>

__ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __E CSjU.1 ___

__1-_

__19_

_87 TO'-

I_

3

__I I

I..

TO I 1_11 IJ o b

__6i

_ I

! I J S Jol pl'.or2: 616-!4 65-S90l

_hI I:I I__

_ _ I 1_

1_

_ I C. 0. D.

• (XOT C.O.D.

i upless, cmount '

1 is shown)

I U-C-

f O-l I t L I.- 7 Rc.ncrks

'I,'>

-. 1 M.crial IRccciv 3

16 1 o~

c c c rc ~6 16o 1 r-Consignee cscoptca roods vi:Cutc~cc-..icn

.VI,:.:L:

aR-(-)

3Z Consignce took exception. See oDcr c

.I I.

4 S hoot I. o. 3 A

Shea-,

2.

hct f C ~

• .S:°ot 0

\\.,'

,..a^et'

• ..0 r-Coco 0dc ;'

I-g77:,

R_2so f _ _ _ _ _ _

.-f..

Is Calc No.: SD-040303.001, Rev. 0

. Attachment Page of 32

s THE CECO CORPORATION

-Bep 14 L-L C i{

d*t t

_IiG

• • i,<

CNT o

7*

r.c10 o~~ FB14;,,.;

se0 iAUF n

a t-HJ-6 0

-v8>-

.co4T.

.3mve!A.

r~~~~~ofs U}~J tr_

l

.oboW d53iCHEC o'r_ __

Idy v-LD STRAIGHT BARS__:

. i.

_,GRAD:E REINFP.. V._

Sd j

~~~~~~~~~_

r n___i

_ ___q i

47 i

2 e MAXIMUN5 BNDL'S.

TON

-4_.:-7 MILL TEST REQ'D. _

J e

_ - __-------1FORt THE CONVENIENICE OF THE

?

z tCARRIER, HE IS REQUESTED TO 7 J i

Z!

N 24 POURS t

W j~~-

-- 1;PtOR TO.DELIVERY TO ARtR MN"Grz

- I t-s j--

2;/* -

• J 1~ ~- jFQR UNLOADIIU.

°sAi* ;tv E

80 f

1 ) IT IS THE RESP.ONSlRILITY OFJHE CON-:

t_ 1.

s-/7.,

ol 1

-- i

--I SIGNEE: TO

-CHECK-:T.HilS w zERItl t@-' ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

7-

• [<

AGAINST THE iATTACHED..SHIPP~itll

.. t 7.....

1 i

~~-

-tLIST t --r-i-J.Y ;

-t

~- - t2) NO CLAI NS FOR -SHORTAGE:;WVILL -11

...._ _._ _.........._ _.[.l !

I#

t CONSIDERED UNgLESS C.ECO IS %N11TIFIED 15-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

. i'...WI

-rXt!bj

'^g

,.tn.~.

THIN 48 HOUR". AFTER AKRIVAL

~~~~~~~~~~~~~-<tt*.AN

' t--- -- ; N GIVEN-A REASONABLE, OP.PO.-

g /~7U

-: TUNIfYTO-VERIFY HE L CESHORi-te ! i.1 ;

. S. X i -

-3) 'NO PREPLACEMS ENITS WlVLCEBE.^..ADE-dN; t6'

-e

• 1-*

{.

.LESS THE ABOVE PROCEDUJRE 9 to

-_-t

,.LOWED EXCEPT :UlPON RE£CEIPT OF AM.

-- T¢>X.7.v;8.5.z=D.4Jv~t> jGE><...................._

XTRA ORDER..;-F sw; r

j

_~g-G;-2;

• Calc No.: SD-040303-001,Rev.O 0

~~ }-. ~ ~~

1 -t.<_rM

_4.*......A,...........;

eb;

• r\\-

'.....U 4

i.

&-Page

/

/of 3 e-tb t i\\

1 Nj/t) 10/)ld X

a; v ;

As i SW _ 1 t or; g 1 -em-!- em A,;AJ h

,;rE

'^Z;

>,;'?'§-='*

.g_

' 7._<

o--

• s

-- I -$-- !-If--; - i -,.

W :.. ; -  -;i;-

- - - as -

,.,..1,..I.j,, i<.

.w

-. 4;

_ ^

anew...

>[0:Awe>TrnH-OFC:E£:O.Cd;Ri5RA~iTION j.0R3t DATE Ir, LATRAL C Or ax __

ON <

e DRWC

• At~LL; !ENSIOPIS OUT TrC OUT*-

, n I;,-

.t 9

Now:

@ 8

• th l

in I,'

4,'

CiAl8Nsit)Ss Buts LEO ARE Zet-

=

z 4

,1 C

l D

_l_

2_

' __.11__

L hi W

j *

- - is-

-- to-- -I i -4g _

t i S i v

, r D

f 1

f em, AS

+

W....

g  * as r -

l -----

j j

i j

--I,-:.- i...l -:t-F: l.-

{...At-.-.- :;

I i

- Id

- j**tZv

. w.g *-

-8. --- ;.

,. 'L i

f.

I L _

fi.$'.

i.

'.t

.,1 t'-.zs' a:::

He I

_e 9!

..i.-;

1-.

, :.:.j...

t i

I

l.

.l j

't

';.'t': -

l i

1.

t t

£ t

t

• l

^

Cale No.

SD-040303-001, Rev. 0

'Attachment -a/

Page /2 of 32C-

.1

, I... _.

ij...... 1.,.....

I I'

t. 1.. -

.i. 1 1::

1. -

l w

l l

In Z

s E

l Esv "TH

§ t

.T'l11IS THE -RkPON'SIB1LITY OF TE CONSIGN4EE TO CHECK

--THIS M.ATERIAL AGA1t4ST THE ATTACHED SHIPPING LIST.'

.2) NO CLA~tAS FOR SHORTA.GES WNILL 8: CONRSIDERED UNLESS

.- CECO.IS NOTIKIED WItTHIN48 HOURS AFTER ARR.IVAL AND

.ts IVE k

EASO,- ABLE OPPORTUiNITY TO YER)FY TP.E AlE[E;

.-.. ED SHOIRVAGE.

';!3) Nso REPLACEM.ENTS WILl BE tMDE. UNILESS THE ABOVE P20-.

• tet'UR

!t;:'

n.C'?

-.t t.T.

, ;J:1 E:.-..

tj:

.. GRADE-REI.NF.'_ 4tX

_iSAB BUNDLEUS gt

-TON MAXIMUM BODE i MILL TEST REQ'D-

-FOR THE CO4VENIEhC`E OF THE".-

l ARRIER-HE IS REQUESTED TO lCALL__

.AT--

__t lit._.

.,ORDER.

t... 4,.

.;8;PR10R.TO DELIEVRt -TGQAR.RAt.4E..

• ~

ToFOR.U?410A 1.*t1 -

A fi i

ao::-~

Lt.

O' :r.-S.rAD

'I

a.

• b; w

J

-ls***s@s.

ale,5U0 ti\\4t G4q

¢;

Mb~tt;R-m 5

LE

-5 3

4

/,

4 q

-,';,9:.'

,.R

.X ei~~~~~~~~~~~~bi~~~~~OTsiES

'...-.Dl^EJhsO7TE R

-3AM F:

-c;j.

.!{

.Ii.V.

, t.;.

¢.,>

.F.

g-L, m:.y<

c"?

52L C--- zfi4. zalEt-r_

21<$X j-SXa-W

-StEL - 4 E t l,/$t9'j o,>ri*, _

O1 t

__~ff~slv bur 1-h At-0J-0MTE ARE-s aq lP

-: fl l

rSI 41%

AiK,_\\

__\\j~f-lh*

.-- ?.t. 9 K J-,l K

P X..

6t~t82---}-m-jj-w-X._¢ gii v_

$--i 11gM~~~r)4->d48ozssT

• ~~A a?4j q

zi$-~~4 6.o;8&9t/

.Iot L

t~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~a it i -* v

.t**;

.eS.*

l t*;;i-

• i*;

.,l V.."._,,

,.', ' j.

1 ',

'- '; t-l

3

?

ti i

<-.!.--;;~~~~~~~~~~~~~1;

......., s-jj#Pg f S

t f,

. w_

L'

-- s' ;.

, -- 7' p>D R s~l, Z

})lT1STE REPONIBII5.OTHECONiGEIE' 0^Ca:'-:c..

N

.':30-.

01 Re.S e

el.tH.

SDEtL'G~ITTEAAHE HPlvt5.'ttt

-04 Az0t 2)NtClAIS O SO:TAZSWt, AttaS1£E

~t>

wHM~iMM (ECO I NO.TI~D

\\'.'IH'N 4a oss ASE AR~lVA Achment i

£5,R

.Iq E

£5N~EGP~T~E.T

,ciXT£'W...iO EC'~~c¢C~F H

I:

TH RESPNSIBLIT

-O

'K CO SGNE TO, CHC L

.,iIf

i vs ii ls~;>t; TAG.

J Dv; cts=:,-_

E i

LIZIVII.C ORPJI 01RAI 1 0 N i'

LEMONT, ILUNTOIS r4 FILE NO._

tepot of Cl.E}.lCAL and PHYSICA~L Tests of ELECTRIC FURilACE STEEL

--118 REDIAR, JAMI 25 72

.J19 Coqdto

.ShipneJ to CECO CORP., LEMOtJT, IL.

Shpplng Notico ATSFT16831T Or li1 Heat Slob ANALYSI S %

Test Piece Yield Point Tengslte n

Red. of Bend Order No.

Order No.

No.

No.,

C Mr.l P

S Si Cut From lbs. per sq. In.

lbs. per A %

Test

.sq in.

C35150 i8 35 73 027 053 60759 91772 15 OK C35157_

36 68 020 044 57468 85316 16 OK A36688 36 66 029 060 53797 85569 17 OK M o RD 0

1-

__~

=-

=

___===_=

, I,. ""g',

t,

'-' ;; s,

. 41,;

.1 K}

.1'b-<

Jv§ ;'t I

LEMONT,. ILIJFt1013

.,LE

,O. 7?..

F I L t-61 O, f'

0- ik:

Rtcptr: of Cl.IM)CAL caned PIYtICAL Ter-is.f ELE'CTRIC FURIIACE STEEL R[BE3AR

,]S!.! 2P' 9nC L.--

J__

I; Clic..I-: to C

CECO CORP.,

LEMONT, ILL.

Shipping Rs ice.

Cr ttlnP l

Ai1sr 1 68551 A N A L Y S IS %

T s T e s l E l ng g

R ed. o f Ore IIHeat Slab Tes PecAYildaoitBSregt

=Order No.

No.

oi.

Cut From lbs. per sq. In lbs. per n

Test C__

O 2 O 5 S i sq. in._

B36789 14 34 68 23 045--

R258 P a

\\

"' l'

' '/

____4_

70

. 50 _

-Z h$

CA 16 a P.

l

.g

.g a

t (D

r) zI tiitIlI=

t

t=

11 0

=.

-11~~~~~~

4t.t m

LA

.. ti

Pt)RCHAEE ORDER DATE I (-

I 1 7 Q-r MATERIAL RECEIPT RECEIVED AT I n.dicna & Michigan Power Co.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear.Plant Const. Dept.

P. 0. Box 458 Bridgman, Michigan 49106 L

ORDER No. L4 S Inf50 yq Go.

CoC P I

MATERIAL RECEIPT-Ta Main Aectg9 Offic.

REQ.

No.

PitEPAID ((.

COLLECT C Does I ~Borfo.I a~

exs jeundleslCorlonsl CoilsI CtaI}sIPkgei. I Nio=

STORES OUANTITY BIN NO.

RECEIVED I T E M S

-s Q-a C--9'R

.O UNOAE

_~~1~

OAINSOE

)-.

NOW TO BE USED D

) n i t

• 1. Q.

C r,I=,+

R I Hc m i.sle M-I S I-?ART I I

fnII.,.

u Oat. Maerial Rsc'd i Dwo. ;:Cssqd I c/7

1. 1 -

C Crri*r J

/

A f r I Expr*ss 1 P.11.rc,111 I

Freight Pro. No.

II

_We-ght D~du~t from Invokce s-wita.cpr I cfa~oI l Pocei t H c FREIGHT IU.P.S.

dE1 Z

Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment Page of of

• .r.?X C.CC-C-

L.ORDE V10nM 4/C IC,.,

D

• /D /~ /*

Par Coanpacly Chaecad*

=~

4 -Coco E~oction F

NZ-c t

city T NOM Thcan & Niclap=n Elactric Cy--xn 0

AcMdross Rd.+ 7~61 (D.C. Cool~: !,Tuclp.r P-larj.+)

City ridmroni Stle2ich State

-ZSCrIPTION

' COSTING DATA lARTICLES N

ISTRICT! PRODUCT i

l CON.

ARTICLESU._

WII HT,

I

_ I 11_

1_

ii1' I

I

.TO_

I i

l ii l7.1~I 1_1____

I; i-;

5'=

,;3.:

6L6-1h65-S 9 1

__6

_ __5_

__5_

I

• C. 0.D.

I ur-.!s.

c o.-a I:

4 in!s~

i C.*nO)j.

.IF'.amarks

_j,_

I J.'

1Ta-,24: Oi-LC.

Mabterial Roceil By I-0M Conrignao accepted scad: without exccticn.

z Consignee took exception. Scc other side.

2.

Calc No.: SD.040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment Page J/, of 32

=

,DL O--;

D E "I=I,

()

D=.

6.

4 a

%D L

-'0 rFUb.LS cr

r*j.*

Cormcn; CwCdA r

t

/Z KC t

____Os,

-Cc Cc co Sea l

=

4.-Coco Eroclion DateP* /

/ 9 /'

Pcr 7 7J sesnnnn 7Rjn k,

I NIn C

.. m C71.,--pn Elac.ric Cc-ija. -i s.1.;

s I

A dress S

1 i

,6 (D (.,. Cno*:

P.kice..r.

,i;)

C;ty Ar Id La -

IC a;

uj; Stc_.

DZSCRIPT:ON I

'COSTING DATA P.

ORDER5-

~

IZ C T; PRODUCT Ar_

E ARTICLES l

.ORER NO.

HAtiGEOt CODE W-IGHT.

I7 i

.,~

.1~

1

~

7

'__ I_

• __*1_-_'

_i_-_.L..

I.

TO a'

I

~ -

I I

j_

_I I

I ___,_

I ___l_

_I 1

~

i t1

__ II__

_ __ __ _I

~~

__6_

__5_

_0_

C. 0. D.

I.

c r If-c

r...,

Material Rac I cd BYI

\\9~4m-W

~6or, Qa a&

th PJL&

/

7//6

=

T'a-u
a:

C l

=

Consignioa accepted goods Vi-.ltout cxcct.icn

=

Consignee toek cxccptton. Sce ot'd;c; zi.

.I.-

Sh:c^ :,

I 0'

a O.

.eie1,

,O r

I

. AS.

I 3

CGCO oza5 j' 7

X

• Rolci PICt

"..,w 4-1
-

i

• i CI.

O_'

-o

• .1 I

a,

-a

-,7.1 C!%..V iAE O-r

- I t-' -,,-

j.'

J.2 I

f

.1

.I Cal o No.: SO-4O03O3-O1, Rev. 0 Atrachnent F

P;,,e A 7 of :C

AE-r..,:a*

a I

LartCLj X_;Ljl

-4L4L-I IL2pJ

\\I

, I

-1

.. I

}j; E

I I

NAMEOF JOB 3; hI-_

C JO,,ti FjUC¶._.c

z.

JJv{flT ORDER IC:

.CONT NO.

SHEET

,OF DATE _9 J

L_

LISrTED Y r.

CHECKED BY.

LJE RI AL FO R _¢CV.. -r d.

C ---

,E

,,,-,ON DRWG.

Zt 1

J S9izi7-r, STRAIGHT BARS COLUMN :1 I

II 41 HO. PCs.

size LCNGTH I l

COLUMN 42 1

NO~ PCsSUI5C I LENSC7

-i1 (4 !H

7 -

b-

______S._

{

4 t4.'

6' -

__I 3.1~

2 N~(~-

1E~Q_7IS V!

__74 I

F C

C II P

F i4 v-I



-i 81 I,

.

9.1

(

.

O.j



I i1J____

I

2.

1_

I_

_.j_

7 I.

I=

=

3.

i o/-

A 0-.

C aic

_ t _

__. - L.abcN.: SD04403C3-0no, Rev. 0 I

1.

1

\\!

X i

I-A achnient 7

RADE REINF.

• AG COLOPZi1l2JL AAXIMUM BNDL'S T__

TO AILL TEST REQ'D__

OR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE ARRIER, HE IS REQUESTED TO ALL. _._.

AT.

I 24 HOURS RIOR TO DELIVERY TO ARRANGE OR UNLOADING.

) IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF TH.E CO SIGNEE TO CHECK THIS MATERI.

AGAINST THE ATTACHED SHIPPIti-LIST.

) NO CLAIIUS FOR SHORTAGES WILL CONSIDERED UNLESS CECO 1 N5OTiFI' WITHIN 48 HOURS AET R.

AND GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPO TUNITY TO VERIFY THE ALLEGED SHOR AGE.

) NO REPLACEMENTS WILL BE MADE lJ LESS THE ABOVE PROCEDURF IS FO LOWED EXCEPT UPOCN RECEIPT OF A EXTRA ORDER.

-!-PageI /

of -

_ __ _._ __.a ___

.1.*

I i

I

ONTACTOR -Z..

I1V

, I.1

'?

il I 1
j :

,C I.

-
.

-1 F : ; ~-.T ~

1!

col SHI t.,'r IL I\\J Ir I

.0CAT*ION I

.lA MEO0F J 0613%- -:

~

.D Lk

!J.tIi I -.-

I ILIS NT.

I 1,

.-... OFI

)

r~-

I TED ay (ATRIL FR 9~-.

Coojr -

pt4; dj~j.?~RL&

SAY&ERR ON 0.r7wr.

7-C., C; 3 II ON onwc

2 &

• /

/

'Ll DtMENSIONS ouT To ouT i? C -,.
F.p,q1_0 DIMENSIONS OMITTED ARE ZE T

r F

G H

.1 R

1,r.0 PCs SIZE LENGTH MARKI.

t A

I 8

I C

E F

C Ft J

R

' U ~

M I_

i xj ~. t:.

I j i l t i 1..j.-I ----..--...-

I-

-Ca.

c

.o.

SL

-04 0 -.0 Rev ttact

~

ment

' I Pa

_g_

I Of

1) IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF -THE CONSIGNEE TO CHECK THIS MATERIAL AGAINST THE ATTACHED SHIPPING LIST.

2) NO CLAIMS FOR SHORTAGES WILL BE CONSIDERED U14LESS CECO IS NOTIFIED WITHIN 48 HOURS AFTER ARRIVAL AND GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE ALLEG-.

ED SHORTAGE.

3) NO REPLACEMENTS WILL BE MADE UNLESS THE ABOVE PRO-CEDURE IS FOLLOWED EXCEPT UPON RECEIPT OF AN EXTRA ORDER.

GRADE REIN F.

4 '-"

TAG BUNDLES TON MA.X"NIMiUM BNDL' MILL TEST REQ'D FOR THE CONVENIE NCE OF.HE CARRIER HE IS REQUESTED TO CALl.

-AT IN2 4_ HO, PRIOR TO DEULVERY T,) A'.r:K;:'

FOR UNLOADING.

~

Vr.%*

• ¶.

a~tFILE'

• .C r1C.

V.

I.~ L Al',,

F 6 u4i Tcrnsil.

ElnIa Rud. or[

2r No0.

MII

-Test Piece Yield Point Sfront.11h rn-

-L:

Area Tend oru to J

o V

Cut From lb6,-. per sq. In.

qIns Tes Oru 773 0003%o 37 73_0200375'7371 (I 4 61 1 6 O___

C3__

____3

_40 75' 025 757

_ 56089 81730 1 8 C 31760 1

L 3 022 046 5

7371 89743 17 OK A-__ 3509_3_8_

038 55128 80769 1 8 OK 40_75 024_054 5'4487 89423 16 OK

.1 V

i IJi

. I II I

i I

.. Ii iI i

I

.II I.. i IA.

.IIi A

I. 1,

-k. I 1,

II.

P.

rect an ro~niclned In the recerds of ilihanp,'.

0

1......

i I......

I
,

lj--,:
I -, I-,

, nA

-,.": A I.-.

A I all S

"I

'I" D

11"4 "'S

")

P V

I,").

j

... 1.1jiliO N I 2-O.. I V-.3,, i,-.- ) h'
, F otm.- b, O.;

9
,r, -

/

j-,t,,r

., 0T tI FR IAC

','. MdITI[lNI 1i

-\\f

.. L. /- */.

/ 0 FILE UAY 31 r

19 S1)Ii)T!:1C1 Notico CECO CORP., :LEUO10T, ILL.

ATSF 1 6:3675 Canr l'--!,&,r ANLSI-Tensila ngRd f

2n lor Ho itll lleat Slob tAALYSIS Test Ploce Yield Point Strength Eigg.

Rr.d. of rend kr~ Order No.

N.No.

C M

s

s.

Cut From lbs. per sq. in lbs. per Inest re

.I S__

Si

_sq

___Test A

A36,33

"11 37 70 021 0-47 50320

°2692 22 OK I

.3 7I1 5c 1

37 70 023 048 50641 415 17 -

01 4

B377o6 9

37 70 014 028 53525 S3

-1 0 17 OK A_

A37168 35 73 01 6 037 84615 18 OK A______,37636

____37 73 022 0 45' 50320 8589/7 1 8 OK 0

l 0

D

~

.)

~.'

I

==_0

--.I_________

,~I~j ILLi4C.:F I

a f r e

.~

t C.f JlECTRIC 0ACE STiEtE;11RI)~___

LE 11.

,.A-) 1 *'

72 cd t) v

.1 1.1011CO rCFC() CORP'..

LI-ENONT. A LL.

AT V(;FT685 2 2 S_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_____a

_r C a r _

l.tiI1 Hact Slab

-*Test Piece Yield Point Strensglt I

lnr J. rnd ir No.

Orde'r No.

llo.

"'C Mn S

Si Cut From tbs. per sq. in bs. pern Test A335:-09

1. i 38 87 01 8 0 38

)2 80769 1 8 OK 1/' B7340 37 79 025 049~

1602 83012 20 O__

.K B_

E37160 6

38 73 025 058 54487 8 337 0jZ O

o l

6F!

-I~~

EE-EXH

-La I.

.1 I.

I.

. I a..

I..

V V. heiteby certify that tl~ae cbovo figures ore cor.

fact as contalneJ in tho records of theco, a,'.

r 0,

X.*

S--

.-5*

t X

I.!

E R

.t X

._C t ';;*

K.

I:sjar i-,e~-

t-

-sb.XPLEpC'TRIC F)!m."G0ESiiW..; ______1 1 I'.II3A:!

I.,, !, -% -,.% -

,.
&-I f

. f;6

j

-:

5,

--

-

.

.I. -J.

I

':/

FILE UO............

0 t

72

,I,!

__l2

'!.I

!'N; -n Sotice CE01Q CORP.,

LEMONT, ILL.

C! 5

,'2.n ATSF 1 683)649 d:. t-la.

ANALYSTensile E l_.

Rod. of ANllALYSIS %.

Test Piece Y'leld Point S.

pneri n' Area oen OrderlA.

I40.

No.

C tin P

S Cut From lbs. per sq. In.

ls. pe r

Test t.______},1 3

72 018.042 54807 89102 21 OK

~YJ*~

V/

38 76 04 57 69 015 85576 19 01.

,I A36682 78 2.

021 041 5

52884 84935 16 OK

-o.

.7

~

-r

~._ _

to W co o

I.

1'*

PURCHASE ORDER DATE.

I (o - 'a-7 r-MATERIAL RECEIPT Th T k e L

ORDER No. LS 5C *q LQo Corp.

RECEIVED AT Indiana & Mkchigan Power Co.

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Const. Dept.

P. 0. Box 458 Bridgman, Michigan 49106

• MATERIAL RECEIPT-To Main Acct'g Ofc REQ.

No.

PREPAID K)

COLLECT Bags I Barrels I B jx-s Bundles Cartonsl Cls Cr Pkge.

Piecs I

I I

I I

I I

STORES QUANTITY SIN NO.

RECEIVED ITEMS

.e' *i

_ors

.~s 29 a2_v UNLOADED BY SLOCATION STORED IY~

(.-Q TO S

+/-.

R I1 PART I I Fi-fl si 4 p -S H

Ta.t.

Passed Carriot

(

eP nri rI-I Express rarcel P-.

Freight Pro. No.

I

.- ---I Weight J(,Oj1S9 F.O.B. Destination Deduct from Invoice SMoret N.ee 1i3Q iq M aterial Receipt No.

~ ~ L-FREIGHT U.P.S.

Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment Page

__i of _

...r -- -

.. e. -

Fonm 4m P.v..

k.
-. -

-. j

.
-I-a. -

'S'-2" I a Co.-.ipq-.iy Cho.-'C'C7d*

'?

C

, A

=Q 1 O-CCCOS'.061 z-.uALJ" LT. U.sL)

Doto

• C_/X 4-4Coco Erection Por a Ncmc Inc5imma & richi-7n E).cc.ic Co-amr Addross E:-tt ;.'i6 (D.C. Cook l.uc2.ic Par.')

City Brdt-pan Ste.

c:n~'.

ixc.. c I.-dre fr.

J-i:

T-cm Dr;t 5w3?.

S. QtC k2.fctcial R, Jve4 ED v

.)

t-El Consicnoa OCC¢^"

1

^^4 W'+2 '.

• t I.

I:-

i!

,i.,

Calc No.: SD.040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment

//

Page ___/_

of _?__

2 C,.

).

C 3'2L'. ORDER I.

3o1

.b. a con2p2 ay Chco ScaI

.*0? So.

M 0 -Coco Stool rr~nm 4t7c rct.

At

. Data *

/

Pot 7

= 1 4.Coco Ercction

.\\'C.-..C, 5

T 0

Ncmc Indie n

& 1aiclhia.

L=ec,.-

c Coi.n7 AUchCss it 116 (D.C. Coo':..

mI.uc7 B,..LU)

City IY

'id r7.f Stoa I

_;,y State 1

I

• COSTING DATA

.. 0. D.

I.

1-W iwlc:

-t i

s

.ivrat R c narkw s J.'

ml A

':L:D, a$-

lo Iar T.:

-- t V, "

Mct ioI Rcc

.z CZt0

w.

Cr

/

Consirnoo ccceptid goods wit..hGut except ion o j

IZI Consignee took CxcCption. Scic oth r sic.

.pin Se

t...;

C.

z:t*

j I --

-I?

..

-r ci' a;

4 oa 3

• .A

.Show,\\

I..

t.:

cF _a CCmpe Ic 5

Of

_I of~

SS:*.J-8

• o*f Of"_

I" we Ss a#

• ' -z.--- _............

coco arcr Trt ES7L>

.his3aS: iy 2

-:t, j

• s ys---sl-skt

^.

e

• '1

R.

j J

I I

140303 001, Rev. O A

Calc No.: SD4 Attachment

(

Pageg ~ of -g2

cvIot I Mt= L.;=LpL.)

J I"hi.

.ONRACTOR r'hi,

. ;. j... I EL5:;z..

.ONT7RAC:TOR _ p t-^

l\\!9 It -' VA1 A A _1L~

I r_ I' I

II C

ORO N

-Y -

CONY. NO.

SHEET

_ DATEa LISTED BY OCATION I.1 4 '.

(. " -;:
l 1-10

.
""

jJ.-.1 I

iALAr ew JOB

.4 :.'

LL;.

IATERIAL FOR

(-"._*

/

2 C1~~r7-ONODRWG 2?1L~)

f-j STRAIGHT BARS jCHECKED BY___-_

COLUMN a 1

, 0 PCS SIZE LENGTH I0.

0

-17

. I i

4.1a..*

?}

L--

COLUMN n2

• CS j S12E LENGTH i

I

1~~

I l

1

7.:

14.1

.9_

/75

______1 I

.7-,

I 28Z.

I I

30.1 _

_I

'i GRADE REINF.

TAG COLOR Wtil___

MAXIMUM BNDL'S.....-.

TO MILL TEST REQ'D.__

FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CARRIER, HE IS REQUESTED TO CALL...

AT IIN 24 HOURS PRIOR TO DELIVERY TO ARRANGE FOR UNLOADING.

1) IT IS THE RES.PONSIBILITY OF THE CO SIGNEE TO CHECK THIS MATERL AGAINST THE ATTACHED. SHIPPII LIST.

2) NO CLAIMS FOR SHORTAGES.WILL CONSIDERED UNLESS CECO IS NOTIFIl WITHIN 48 HOURS AFTER ARIRV.

AND GIVEN A REASONABLE.OPPO TUNITY TO VERIFY THE.ALLEGED SHOF AGE.

3) NO REPLACEMENTS WILL BE MADE U LESS THE ABOVE PROCEDURE IS Fr LOWED EXCEPT UPON' RECEIPT OF I EXTRA ORDER.

Calc Nc.: SD040303.001, Rev. 0 Atachment Pace _

of 3 !.

3222 3__2__

I

,i

-- I

.1 ii 33.1

v.'--.I I

tLL L_ L J=

L; U L

L; Lir tI1

& k I I Ji 'd

• s.

fI Il

!.. I.. 0.

I*

OF

?NTRACTOR...IJ1I9

.... : #1I 4

I:

cc I

C A T)

I O

N jt vj\\\\'o

• [

DCATION I- "

~

1.

-4 D

RDER St"

)NT. NO. AV IEET..

OFp -

kTE t

AT

.. +/-

ISTED BY. I--e<---

E OF JO

_A)-.

i.

t, 1;'l;,

IK§J 1 I A.~~1 LI!

ATERIAL FOR

____ _____- co _J_ _

ON DRWG.

1/2ll::
_

tend Zc LL DJI&LNSIONS Our TO OUT 0I f

SIZE i LENGTH !

A

!B lC

• K,(~~~

. ~.....

P~_

IC_

.~~~~~~~~~J

..:_..--.,.. -s.?l DIMENSIONS OMITTED ARE ZE.

D E

I F

l G

H J

K

-~

~

I

_i t_.:

I

/

2 It' S.

R C

I I _

T i

El 0-3-

I Page.2.5 1

L

/_

I I

I _ _

I 1 I

-L

_ _ _ t -1 i----

j I__

_I---

J z ? -

T I

A 1 L o 7 -

1'

-1 1-1V _ K TT T

_ _I_ _

• 1 _

I_ I I _ _ _ 1

_ _ _ j 1

1 I

I II I

Ii

.1 1

1_

1 1

1_

1_

_l

]

agr2 042 1

1

.1 I

I_

_I Ij__

_ _I_

I!i l

1) IT IS THIS THE RESPONSIBILITY.OF MATERIAL AGAINST THE THE CONSIGNEE TO CHECK ATTACHED SHIPPING LIST.

2) NO CLAIMS FOR SHORTAGES WILL BE CONSIDERED UNLESS CECO IS NOTIFIED WITHIN 48 HOURS AFTER ARRIVAL AND GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE ALLEG-ED SHORTAGE.

3) NO REPLACEMENTS WILL BE MADE UNLESS THE ABOVE PRO-CEDURE IS FOL0 1'OWD EXCEPT UPON RECEIPT OF AN EXTRA ORDER.

GRADE REINF._-4 TAG BUNDLES.

TON MAXIMUM BND1 MILL TEST REQ'D___

FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CARRIER HE IS REQUESTED TO CALL AT__

IN

__24__ --

H0UIRS PRIOR TO DELIVERY TO ARRAINIsGiE FOR UNLOADING.

I~t.,

I I a 1K

• CA T ION-...

.ME t1

-d-,

(.0f

~J CONT. NO. ' v. *:

I' SHEET A ZOF 3

DATE <_.15 I-

t. 2 LISTED B

t.~

ea ru.

Gove S

I

-I vrs ue<wa,

.L DIMENSIONS OUT TO OUT DIMNSONOITT__RE__

P-cs jlz ICGH MP(AD E

F G

H J

K R

c I

~

-1k I-~ !1'

-WA (M0IIA 4

__4 I,.1, Li-If ld1 I-I I

J__

_I__

D.

.I.

I._.

I

=

Calc No.: S0-040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment_

/_

Page 3 of 32 I-.

j Ii 1).IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONSIGNEE TO CHECK THIS MATERIAL AGAINST THE ATTACHED SHIPPING LIST.

2) NO CLAIMS FOR SHORTAGES WILL BE CONSIDERED UNLESS CECO IS NOTIFIED WITHIN 48 HOURS AFTER ARRIVAL AND GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE ALLEG-ED SHORTAGE.

3) NO REPLACEMENTS WILL BE MADE UNLESS THE ABOVE PRO.

CEDURE IS FOLLOWED EXCEPT UPON RECEWPT OF AI EXTRA ORDER.

GRADE REINF.__<1i TAG BUNDLES l-'E TON MAXIMUM BNC MILL TEST REQ1 D_

FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CARRIER HE IS REQUESTED TO CALL AT_

IN 24 HOURS PRIOR TO DELIVERYl' TO AC;R.r.PA^;,G FOR UNLOADING.

I I

.If

.1 t

-~ ~r:*~.'~

U'~.i'~,

• c~ts f

E!GTRIO FDITWAACF STIM.'

k IC3

!0l o Is FILE NO.- ---..

~ p -JANI 25 72 I

i CEC() CORP.

LEMIAQT, I L.

ShipplineT

~~Car 1-1-r..'r cnwl ANLSS11 eslbs Einng.

Rod, of Bn Order1 He.ato Slo.bNLSS Ttest Piece Yield Point Strength Bend__

re Ordr N.

o.io.Cut From lbs. per sq. In, lsq. per 1

J) #

Ae Test 35150 35 73 027 053.

60759 91772 15 OK C355736 68 020 044.

57468 8531 6 1 6 OK, A_6688_36 66 029 060 53797 85569 17

• OK

• Cn CD 1'

.5.

• S.

I.

I..

.F.

1.*

I.

I..

I.I..

. I.>

4.

¶Wo hlvra1y Certify that the C!~Cvf (i,21 rael as contained In the records of al.

itax era Cer ho cornpcn<-j

j7

^

• z

.,, 1... I j#1'--V, I 't 4 ) 1 r - ",, -

-) F')-, -,-..- ", ;

% -
-'. k.,

1 FU 11.'
, k
'-,
.!

I" '!..I

- k

,, 'I' '
if,,, :,.

I.J
i

- o il'iiT P`1.11111,
S

.- 4.'L. i

.,.4.

...., i..,

1J.FO',t-'!T, ILLINO\\-0IS 72 >, -

i--- I FILE M1.

JAM' 14 l-72 o_-

9_

.'..i; nii.

I.;.'.L of

ŽI; L

io ntd\\C.'

i

1. 5 REf'R/.R

'S.

edCO CORPS,. LEMONT, I Lt..

SShipping N4otico rnr lom lenn-ATSF 168336 ANALYSIS

,a%

Viwg.,

Rd of I

lHetSlab ANLSS

~Test Piece Yield Point TeSIrcg ElW j nd~

rder No.

Orderl Noea 0

No.

c n

~

~

I*i1 1

Cut From lblb..

ensqrea. lTeste Ord-r :o._s..

sq. i T_ t l

Orir No l__

S AALY51

=r t~sq.

dn

_ f\\o C 34930.

_C34982 )

I,5 27 76 019 040 58709 79677 22 OK

-1 I'

-I.

J 34 63 019 035 57741

79354, 21 OK

=363

_8 A3 70l_ 020 0414

- =

59 032 OK 34 3Q.

_.j 023 Q4.....

i....

86 779.

L

).9 2

)032-1 OK

_~-~

448 I

65 02= 05 =

=21 OK' CD i

iI L

/

/9 C

/'

• /'

. c..,1' 2 /

-e We hereby certify thc tho above flcures core er. -t.

rect as contained In the records of the compony. -,

7.

i

-

I.

A Statistical tables ST-49 Table T-11 b: One-sided tolerance limit factors for a normal distribution*

do= conl6cVCf.r

/

70 Of e?

4 = 090 7= 0.95 J

7-0.99 a I r = 0.OTr= 0.95 r -0.99 1 j

.0r=3 0195 -r =O0.99 1T= 0.90 x= 0.95r=o0.99 II 2

3 4

S.

6 7

8 9

10 12 14 16 28 20 22 24 26 28 30 3S 40 45 50 60 70 30 90 100 150 200 250 300 350 400.

500 1,000 eo 10.253 13.090 4.258 5.311 3.188 3.957 2.742 3.400 2.494 3.092 2.333 2.894 2.219 2.754 2.133 2.650 2.066 2.568 1.966 2.448 1.895 2.363 1.842 2.299 1.800 2.249 1.765 2.208 1.737 2.174 1.712 2.145 1.691 2.120 1.673 2.099 1.657 2.080 l.624 2.041 1.598 2.010 1.577 1.986 1.559 1.965-1.532 1.933 1.511 1.909

.1.495 1.890 1.481 1.874 1.470 1.861 1.433 1.818 1.411 1.793 1.397 1.777 1.386 1.765 1.378 1.755 1.372

. 1.748 1.362 1.736 1.338 1.709 1.282 1.645 18.500 7.340 5.438 4.666 4.243 3.972 3.783 3.641 3.532 3.371 3.257 3.172 3.105 3.052 3.007 2.969 2.937 2.909 2.884 2.833 2.793 2.761 2.735 2.694 2.662 2.638 2.618 2.601 2.546 2.514 2.493 2.477 2.466 2.456 2.442 2.407 2.326 20.581 6.155 4.162 3.407 3.006 2.755 2.582 2.454 2.355 2.210 2.109 2.033 1.974 1.926 1.886 1.853 1.824 1.799 1.777 1.732 1.697 1.669 1.646 1.609 1.581 1.559 1:542 1.527 1.478 1.450 1.431 1.417 1.406 1.398 1.385 1.354 1.282 26.260 7.656 5.144 4.203 10.553

.7.042 5.741 3.708 3.399 (3.031) 2.736 2.614 2.524 2.453 2.396 2.349 2309 2.275 2.246 2.220 2.167 2.125 2.092 2.065 2.022 1.990 1.964 1.944 1.927 1.870 1.837 1.815 1.800 1.787 1.778 1.763 1.727 1.645 5.062 4.642 4.354 4.143

'3.981 3.747 3.585 3.464 3.370 3.295 3.233 3.181 3.136 3.098 3.064 2.995 2.941 2.898 2.862 2.807 2.765 2.733 2.706 2.684 2.611 2.570 2.542 2.522 2.506 2.494 2.475 2.430 2.326 37.0941 103.029 131.426 185.617 13.995 17.370 23.896 7.380 9.083 12.387 5.362 6.578 8.939 4.411 5.406 7.335 3.859 4.728 6.412 3.497 4.285 5.812 3.240 3.972 5.389 3.048 3.738 5.074 2.777 3.410 4.633 2.596 3.189 4.337 2.459 3.028 4.123 2.357 2.905 3.960 2.276 2.808 3.832 2.209 2.729 3.727 2.154 2.662 3.640 2.106 2.606 3.566 2.065 2.558 3.502 2.030 2.515 3.447 1.957 2.430 3.334 1.902 2.364 3.249 1.857 2.312 3.180 1.821 2.269 3.125 1.764 2.202 3.038 1.722 2.153 2.974 1.688 2.114 2.924 1.661 2.082 2.883 1.639 2.056 2.850 1.566 1.971 2.740 1.524 1.923 2.679 1.496 1.891 2.638 1.475 1.868 2.608 1.461 1.850 2.585 1.448-. 1.836 2.567 1.430 1.814 2.540 1.385 1.762 2.475 1.282 1.645 2.326

• Adapted from Odeh, R. E., and D. B. Owen. 1980. Tables for Normnal Tolerance Uimu. Sampling Plans, and Screenin.g Marcel Deklcer. Inc., New York. NY. Table 1, pp. 17-69. courtesy of Marcel Dekker.

c.

r 87 tCalc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 R A PL i LE Attachment LL CapPaae I'

of 2 ar.1

• • • I A.7'

ST-48 Applying Statistics os, r

Table T-1 1 b: One-sided tolerance limit factors for a Tz normal distribution di

i.

Statistical tolerance limits are values derived from sample data in such a manner as to encompass a specified fraction of a population's values and to do so with a prescribed level of confidence. Table 11-b provides the factors needed to produce one-sided lower or upper bounds from samples of size n of normally distributed variables. Factors are given-for three fractions-r = 0.90, 0.95, and 0.99-and for three levels of confidence-y 0.90, 0.95, and 0.99. For other combinations of n, a, and y, refer to Odeh and Owen (1980, pp. 17-69).

Because statistical tolerance intervals are functions of the sample's mean and standard deviation, the intervals themselves are random variables: they change their calculated endpoints with each new sample. But, because of the nature of their construction, 100-y% of them will contain 100Xr% of the population from 1

which their samples are drawn.

l 1:

acnmple 1: Consider a sample of size n 10 that yields x 143.2 and 2

s = 13.9. To create a one-sided upper interval that contains 90% of the 2

population with 95% confidence, turn to Table T-llb. From the three columns 2'

headed by y -0.95, find the column headed by r = 0.90. At the intersection 2

of thacolumn with the row labelled 10, note the value k = 2.355. The 31 interval's upper endpoint is found by calculating x + is = 143.2 + 2.355(13.9) 143.2 + 32.7 = 175.9. Thus, with 95% confidence, the interval (-m, 175.9) l 4' contains 90% of the population.

l 1 6(

Example 2: Consider a sample of size n = 10 that yields x = 143.2 and 7f s =13.9. To create a one-sided lower interval that contains 90% of the population with 95% confidence, turn to Table T-llb. From the three columns

c headed by y = 0.95, find the column headed by or = 0.90. At the intersection 10O of that column with the row labelled 10, note the value k = 2.355. The IS1 20i interval's upper endpoint iks-

= 143.2 - 2.355(13.9) 25

= 143.2 - 32.7 = 110.5. Thus, with 95 % confidence, the interval (110.5, -)30 contains 90% of the population.

35(

40(

endoin foun by-s cacla->tin a

ks

14.

250'1.)~~

IA57oZ as7Wo

¢-4 T

&S lR{

• Ad; plans Calc No.: SD040303-001, Rev.0 l

D'kk Attachment l

Page 2 of 2

40_6JKi71d,~SIN'-:0

~., ~=.

- Excel Spreadsheets Used for Computations Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment Page

/

of t

Table M2 (Units 1 & 2)

Yield Point Yield Point Heat No.

Bar Size Test #1 Test #2

_(

p si)

(psi)

C34105

1. 11 50,897 52,115 B37160

1. 11 51,025 50,833 C35157

1. 8 51,265 50,759 B36171

1. 11 52,115 52,692 A37151

1. 11 50,448 50,192 B37340

1. 11 52,179 49,487 A36334

1. 11 50,384 49,935 Average 51,023 Standard Deviation 947.04

i

.E I

Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment Page 2 of C

B C

D E

2 Table M2 (Units 1 & 2) 3 t No Yield Point Test #1 Yield Point Test #2 Heat No.

Bar Size (psi)

(psi) 4 5 C34105

1. 11 50897 52115 6 B37160

1. 11 51025 50833 7 C35157

1. 8 51265 50759 8 B36171

1. 11 52115 52692 9 A37151

1. 11 50448 50192 10 B37340

1. 11 52179 49487 11 A36334

1. 11 50384 49935 12 13 Average =AVERAGE(D5:E11) 14 Standard Deviation =STDEV(D5:E11) 15 16 17 a,

~

Su0 0

Table M3-1 (Unit 1)

I&M Determined Yield Point, Heat Bar Size psi B37160

1. 11 51,025 B37160

1. 11 50,833 C34105

1. 11 50.89 C34105

1. 11 52.115 C35157

1. 8 51,265 C35157

1. 8 50,759 AVG 51.14 SDEV 505.46 Table M3-2 (U it2)

I&M Determined Yield Point, Heat Bar Size psi A36334

1. 11 50.384 A36334 1#11 49,935 A37151

1. 11 50,448 A37151

1. 11 50,192 B36171 f11 52,115 B36171

1. 11 52.692 B37340 f11 52.179 B37340

1. 11 49.487 C35157

1. 8 51.265 C35157

1. 8 50.759 AVG 50,946

_SDEV 1072.65 Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment L

Page 4.. of u

I A

I

.6 I

D I

E 1

Table M3-1 (Unit 1)

I&M Determined Yield 2 Heat Bar Size Point, psi 3 B37160

1. 11 51025 4 B37160

1. 11 50833 5 C34105

1. 11 50897 6 C34105

1. 11 52115 7 C35157

1. 8 51265 8 C35157

1. 8 50759 9

10 1

_AVG

=AVERAGE(D3:D8) 12 SDEV -STDEV(D3:08) 13 14 15 16 17 18 Table M3-2 (Unit 2)

I&M Determined Yield 19 Heat Bar Size Point,-psl 20 A36334

1. 1-50384 21 A36334

1. 11 49935 22 A37151

1. 11 50448 23 A37151

1. 11 50192 24 B36171

1. 11 52115 25 636171

1. 11 52692 26 637340

1. 11 52179 27 B37340

1. 11 49487 28 C35157

1. 8 51265 29 C35157

1. 8 50759 30 31 33 AVG =AVERiAGE(D20:D29)

-i I

34 I SDEVI =STDEV(D20:D29) 5.7 Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment

/

Page S of

• 0 - Normal Distribution Statistical Data Sheets Calc No.: SD-040303-OGI. Rev. 0 Attanhment

/0, Page_/_ of 1.

W Test for Normaiity -14 I&M Test Results for Unit 1 & 2 Refer to Pages 7-9 through 7-12 of Reference 3 q = 0.05 = level of confidence (Refer to Page 11)

Rank i Ascending Descending Difference Table T-6a a(i)[y(n-i+1)

Ordered Ordered

[y(n-i+1) -

Coefficients

- y(i)]

Data y(i)

Data y(i)]

for K=7 y(n-i+1) a(i) 1 49487 52692 3205 0.5251 1682.9455 2

49935 52179 2244 0.3318 744.5592 3

50192 52115 1923 0.2460 473.0580 4

50384 52115 1731 0.1802 311.9262 5

50448 51265 817 0.1240 101.3080 6

50759 51025 266 0.0727 19.3382 7

50833 50897 64 0.0240 1.5360 8

50897 9

5 1025 10 512655 11 52115 12 52115 13 52179 14 52692 B =

3334.6711 Table T-6b from Ref. 3 Wq(n) = 0.874 S = 947.04 n = 14 W = (B**2)/(n-1)*(S**2) = 0.9537 W > Wq(n), Result.= Normal Distribution Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment /° Page 2 of

W Test for Normality - 6 I&M Test Results for Unit 1 Rank i Ascending Descending Difference Table T-6a a(i)[y(n-i+l)

Ordered Ordered

[y(n-i+1) -

Coefficients

- Y(iWI Data y(i)

Data y(i)]

for K=3 y(n-i+1) a(i) 1 50759 52115 1356 0.6431 872.0436 2

50833 51265 432 0.2806 121.2192 3

50897 51025 128 0.0875 11.2000 4

51025 5

51265 6

52115 B

1004.4628 II I

Table T-6b from Ref. 3 Wq(n) = 0.788 S = 505.46 n=6 W = (B**2)/(n-l)*(S**2) = 0.7898 W > Wq(n), Result = Normal Distribution Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment / ° Page '?

of C

W Test for Normality -10 I&M Test Results for Unit 2 Rank i Ascending Descending Difference Table T-6a a(i)[y(n-i+l)

Ordered Ordered

[y(n-i+1) -

Coefficients

- y(i)]

Data y(i)

Data y(i)]

for K=5 y(n-i+1) a(i) 1 49487 52692 3205 0.5739 1839.3495 2

49935 52179 2244 0.3291 738.5004 3

50192 52115 1923 0.2141 411.7143 4

50384 51265 881 0.1224 107.8344 5

50448 50759 311 0.0399 12.4089 6

50759 7

51265 8

52115 9

52179 10 52692 B= 3109.8075 Table T-6b from Ref. 3 Wq(n) = 0.842 S = 1,072.65 n=10 W = (B**2)/(n-1)*(S**2) = 0.9339 W > Wq(n), Result = Normal Distribution ip Calc No.: SD040303.001, Rev. 0 Attachment Jo Page CL of C

Calculation Review Conunent Form Calculation No.: SD-040303-001 I Revision: 0 CS NO:

Title UNIT 1 & 2 CONTROL ROD DRIVE MISSILE SHIELD

Attachment:

11 REINFORCING STEEL YIELD STRENGTH Page: 1 of 1 This form was completed using the Calculation Review Checklist from 12 EHP 5040 DES.003 N Attachment 3 C] Attachment 4, Restricted Use Calculation Review Checklist Calculation Review El Full Scope Review D Partial Scope Review (Describe scope in Comment #1)

Checklist Comment Attribute Comment Resolution I

4a Provide an overview of the The overview of the method/approach has method/approach that will be used for the been provided at the beginning of Section 6.0.

calculation.

2 6b The details currently provided in Sections These sections have been moved to Section 6.1 and 6.2 more correctly belong in 8.0, "Assumptions & Limitations".

Section 8, Assumptions and Limitations.

3 7d The details for the tests for normality are The tests for normality now appear in Section an inherent part of the calculation and 9.0. "Calculations".

should be evaluated in Section 9, Calculations.

4 7c For the information currently in Section Additional justification for discounting the use 6.1 (see Comment 2), additional

• of the CMTR data has been given in Section justification is needed for discounting the 8.0.

use of the CMTR data.

5 6a In the current Section 6.2, an incorrect This incorrect statement has been corrected.

statement is made regarding CMTR data vs. I&M test data. Not all CMTR values exceed the companion I&M test values.

6 4b In the current Section 6.2, the I&M test All I&M tests are now considered together.

data for the individual tests from each The individual tests from each heat are now heat are called out separately. There is no not called out separately.

basis (or need?) for this approach. This also applies to Section 9.0, Method 2 (page 15).

7 6b On Page 8, 6.2.i, the determined strain This section was removed from the may not be correct. Elongation was calculation. The strain rate is no longer being determined over an 8 inch specimen, not used in the discussion.

a 36 inch specimen.

8 1 Id 0 graph needs to be This has been completed. Graphs for Unit I reconfigured so that the unit specific and Unit 2 can now be discerned.

information can be discerned when printed in black and white.

9 N/A Various editorial comments provided via These have all been reviewed and corrected.

marked up pages.

____________________es_____________._

Computations were checked by a combination ot Microsoft Excel Statistical Analysis Tools and l-1-o calculator.

Reviewed by:

Print Name Si

)

Date I

I P. W. Leonard 13/6>/Z I

L 14 This form is dcrivcd from 12 EHP 5040 DES.003

Design Review Board Approval Form El E-Mod, El TM, Z CALC, I] Other Product No.: SD-040303-001 Rev. 0 Title of Product:

Missile Block Rebar Calculation Date: March 22, 2004 The DRB will be responsible for providing an additional level of management oversight to assure the quality of products reviewed and endorsed by the DRB.

DRB members shall pay particular attention to the aspects of the products (i.e., design input, assumptions, equipment locations, etc) within their respective areas of expertise.

DRB comments have been satisfactorily resolved and incorporated or included as open item(s) as designated by membership signatures OR Chairperson signature below.

Approval by Membership I

I 4

I I

Ii i

Area Name (Printed)

Name (Signature)

Date Regulatory Affairs Configuration Control Donald Hafer NE Electrical v -

__. A, NEI&C NE Mechanical NE Structural System Engineering Operations Nuclear Safety Projects MMS MET.

ENPI ENPV_

ESY Reactor Engineering ENPM OR Approval by Chairperson Name (Printed)

Name (Signature)

D Da' Paul R. Donavin

'5-C K\\

Calc No.: SD-040303-001, Rev. 0 Attachment / 2 Page I

of

/

This form is derived from Data Sheet I of 12-EHP-5040-DRB-001. Rev. 4, Design Review Board Expectations.

Policies, and Practices.